E 357 



.P55 




..«'^ ■^*. 



.:¥ 






•^0^ 










I- 



<.5> 












i 











^*& « ^f«i(^nw <• 







°' /.'i-iz^-^ ^''•^^°- ./.>i^-*-^- ^' 




AN 



imFARTIAL ZSXAlMtZllTATIOrar 



GAPTAISMT ISAAC PHIIiXikPS, 



LATE OF TUH NAVT, 



And Commander of the United States Sloop of War 



■'/ 






m^ 



In n98. 



Compiledfrom original Documents and Records, -with the Proceedings upon his 
application to be restored to his rank in 



THE UNITED STATES NAVY. 



iJaltitttote: . 

FRZNTXSD BV SUNJAMIN EDES. 

1825. 



C^51 



iHstrict of Marylandt to tint: 

BE IT RE.VIEMHEKEl), that on the thirteenth day of September, in the 
.^xxj fiftieth year of the Independence of the United States of 

•^^^ America, Isaac PhiUips, of the said District, hath deposited in 
^S^ltM^ tlfis office the title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as 
V^^^^^^ Proprietor, in the words following, to wit: 

'•^^Jpi^ "An impartial examination of the case of Captain Isaac Phil- 
^*^^ "lips, late of the Navy, and Commander of the United State9 
"Sloop of War Baltimore, in 1798. Compiled from Original Documents 
"and Records, with the proceedings upon his application to be restored to 
"his rank in the United States Navy," 

. In conformity with the Act of the Congress of the United States, enti- 
tled "An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies 
of Maps, Charts and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of such copies 
during the times therein mentioned;" and also to the Act, entitled "An 
Act supplementary to the act, entitled, an act for the encouragement of 
learning by securing the copies of Maps, Charts and Books to the Authors 
and Proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned, and 
extending the benefits thereiif to the arts of designing, en^aving and etch- 
ing Historical and other prints." 

PHILIP MOORE, 

Clerk of the District of Maryland. 



TO THE 



PEOPIaS or THE UNITED STATES. 



There arc events in the lives of most men, capable of 
eliciting public censure or applause; for in all, the public 
have a common interest. This is true in regard to the or- 
dinary transactions of life; but that interest is increased, 
wlien thie conduct of an individual, who holds a responsi- 
ble public station, is called in question. Whenever this 
happens, the public have a right to scrutinize his acts; to 
examine into the nature of his public duties; the manner 
in which he has discharged them; to express an opinion 
of the propriety of his conduct, and to censure or ap- 
prove as he may seem to deserve. What the community 
do from a spontaneous expression of feeling in one case, 
they perform of right, and as a matter of duty, in the 
other. When correctly informed, public opinion is usually 
just. Unless blinded by passion or prejudice, or deceived 
by misrepresentations, it seldom errs, and is, therefore, 
entitled to a high degree of respect. It is a tribunal to 
which every one may safely appeal for redress against op- 
pression and injustice; or for justification under unfound- 
ed censure, or malicious calumny. 

In this country, from the nature of our civil institutions 
the character of our government, and the habits and feel- 
ings of our citizens, public sentiment is omnipotent. The 
maxim, "vox popidi, vox dd^" has long been received, and 
has become universally popular. And as the public main- 
tain and exercise the right of deciding upon the conduct, 



and even motives of individuals, they, in return, liave an 
equal riglit, to appeal to that puhlic,for a full hearingj for 
a fair and impartial trial, of every charge, upon which any 
one may chance to he arraigned. Turc and unsophisti- 
cated as are our habits and principles,- virtuous, intelligent 
and upright, as are our tribunals of justice, and public 
functionaries, yet even here, in this land of republican li- 
berty, and under a government of laws, this privilege is 
invaluable. Before this august tribunal, all meet together 
upon terms of equality, and stand forth upon the same 
extended i^ug of free citizenship. Here, no dark intrigue, 
no low clircSery, no undue influence, no petty rules or 
miserable technicalities, can be seized upon and enforced, 
to pervert the course of justice, and stifle the truth. Pub- 
lic feeling is always true to justice, and though its expres- 
sion may sometimes be retarded, yet, sooner or later, its 
voice will he heard, and whenever it is, it will proclaim the 
truth, and be respected. 

With these impressions, I present myself before an en- 
lightened community, whose good opinion I have never for- 
feited, and am anxious to retain. I come before them for 
a full hearing, and an impartial adjudication. The vindica- 
tion of my honour as an oflicer, and as a man, is a solemn 
duty I owe to myself, my friends, and my country. I owe 
it even in courtesy to my enemies, to repel the'unjust as- 
persions that have been attempted to be cast upon'my pub- 
lic conduct. Even at this lateperiodf it cannot be thought 
an intrusion. A soldier's honour is, and should be, dear to 
him. It is the jewel he has worn nearest his heart, when 
that heart was warm with hope and honest ambition. It 
is the price of his life's blood, and he should as soon shed 
the last drop of the one, as disregard the other. It can 
never be too late, therefore, to demand justice from honour- 
able men, or to expect redress for undeserved reproach, 
from an impartial public: which has a deep interest to pro- 
mote, in atoning for its wrongs, but no fair inducement 
to persevere in error. 



Few persons conversant with the political history of our 
country, from the year 1796, to 1800, can have forgotten 
the events of that period. That party spirit, whose ran- 
cour has so lon!^ embittered our social intercourse, was# 
then in its infancy; btit rapidly increasing, in strength and 
vigour, to a sturdy manhood. The popular measures of 
our government, to meet the exigencies of the country at 
home, and the peculiar state of our foreign relations, par- 
ticularly with England and France, produced results and 
feelings, that need but be named^ to be remembered. 

At this period of time, it was my fortune to hold a pub- 
lic station; and in the state of our affairs, one that was 
highly responsible. Some portion of my official conduct, 
has, long since, passed the ordeal of public opinion, and 
efforts have not been wanting, to render that opinion pre- 
judicial to me. To burnish the whole of my public conduct, 
therefore, from the rust that time and neglect J^gjre^ col- 
lected around it, and present it in its native brightness be- 
fore tlie world; to redeem its history from the base misre- 
presentations, and daring falsehoods, which malice, inte- 
terest, or fear perhaps, have heaped upon it, till its very 
record is a libel; and to lay a plain unvarnished tale of 
truth before you, is one object of this publication. Ano- 
ther is, to seek that justice from my country and the opi- 
nion of my fellow citizens, which I have never forfeited 
my right to demand, of them, and the world. 

Circumstances, of a peculiar character, have conspired, 
to produce this delay. Events, over which it was suppos- 
ed, oblivion had spread its mantle, have come to ligitt; 
witnesses, whose existence was unknown, and who were 
thought to have been gathered to their fathers, have ap- 
peared again; and if justice and truth are stamped with 
the character of eternity, there is no act of limitation 
to bar their claim to respect, although twent}'-iile years 
have elapsed^ since the events alluded to look place. 
Whether under the circumstances of my case, I sball lose 
all right to legal redress, by this delay, is not for me to 
determine. Whether I deserve to suffer so much unrecjuit- 



6 

ed, or not, I ask your candid judgment. Be that what it 
may, I shall 2fain what has, most unjustly, hecn attem])tcd 
to he jilched from me, the good opinion of my countrymen. 
lOThe justice of my cause, the integrity of my conduct and 
the purity of my motives, forhid me to doubt it. The in- 
telligence of the people of the United States; their respect 
for justice, and their high sense of honor, all assure me, 
that 1 need not fear their decision. 

The only history of tliis transaction, that has reached 
the public, which, at the time it happened, created much 
excitement, is contained in the first volume of the Naval 
Chronicle, published at Washington in 1824. Tliat ac- 
count is collected from such materials, as the department, 
at that time afforded. How far they are to he relied upon, 
in this case, will appear, perhaps, to the satisfaction of 
every one. Of their errors, if any should be pointed out. 
and proven, and how they occurred, the public will judge. 
And that no information should be withheld, I shall publish 
all the Chronicle contains, relating to my case. 

Frcm the United States'' JVaval Chronicle. 

"On the 8tli January, 179D, the President of the United States communi- 
cated to the House of Ilepresentalives, incomphance with their resolution 
of the 2d of that month, the following' circumstances, in relation to the 
iHitrage committed on the United States' ship of war, the Baltimore, of 
twenty guns, under the command of Captain Isaac Phillips. 
Extract of a letter from George C. Morton, Esq. acting Consul of the United 

States at the Havana^ to the Secretary of State, dated Havana, I8th J\'ovem- 

ber, 1798. 

'•Uy the delegation of Daniel Hawley, Esq. I am at present acting as 
Consul of the United States, in this district. It imposes upon me the mor- 
tifying task, sir, of informing you of the partial capture of an American 
fleet, imder the convoy of tjie Baltimore sloop of war, Isaac Phillips, Esq. 
commander, by a British squadron, oil" this harbor, accompanied with cir- 
cum^'tances rather grating to the feelings of Americans, and by no means 
analagous to that good harmony, which seems to subsist between the two 
governments. 

"The answer of Messrs. Trezevant and Timmons, to my note of the 
7tli instant, requesting an exact relation of the occurrence, will, I presume, 
be deemed as impartial a narrative as can be given, of the whole transac- 
tion, they having been passengers on board one of the captured vessels, 
and remove*! to the Baltimore." 



Lewis Trezevant and William Timmo?is, Esqs. to G. C. Morton, Esq. 

"Havaxna, Nov. IS, 1798. 

"SIR — Agreeably to your request, we now commit to writing;, the best' 
account we are able to give you, of the conduct of Captain Loring, com- 
modore of the British squadron, which was lately off the Moro, towards 
the United States' ship the naltimore. We must observe, however, that 
all we can say of it, is from the information of Captain Phillips, as we were 
not on board of the Baltimore when she was visited by Captain Loring's 
officers. 

"In the morning of the 16th inst. we discovered this squadron, when 
we were in sight of the Moro, and afterwards found it was composed of 

otptain Loring's sliip, the Carnatick, of seventy -four guns; captain 's 

ship, the Thunder, of the same force; captain Dobson's ship, the Queen, 
of ninety -eight guns; captain DonoUy's frigate, the Maidstone, of thirty- 
two guns, and captain Hardy' frigate, the Grey Hound, of the same force. 
"\Ve were passengers in the brig Norfolk, captain Butler, which, together 
with the ship Eliza, captain Baas, and the brig Friendship, captain Fuller, 
were cut off' from their entrance into port, and were all made prizes with- 
in gun-shot of the Moro. We obtained leave to go on board the Balti- 
more with our baggage, and did so. When captain Philhps discovered 
that tliey were English ships, which was before we were taken, he stood 
towards them, and spoke the commodore. After we got on board the 
Baltimore, the captain informed us, that he ha<l been on board the Car- 
natick, and that the Commodore had told him, that he should take out of 
the Baltimore, all such men as had not American protections; that he had 
remonstrated with him against showing such an indignity to our flag; that 
to do so, would leave his ship in a very defenceless state, and would de- 
prive him of nearly all his. men, as not even those who were really Ameri- 
cans, or, at least, very few of them, could show protections, because it 
was always thought that our flag, on board of a government ship was a suf- 
ficient protection. All this, however, was urged in vain. Captain Phil- 
lips returned to his ship, and the commodore sent an ofliicer on board the 
Baltimore, who carried away fifty-five of her men to the Carnatick. Cap- 
tain Phillips remained in expectation that nearly all the rest would be 
taken from him; but whether the commodore, upon reflection, thought 
better of it, or whatever else might have been his motive, he sent back 
fifty, and kept five, among whom was the ship's boatswain. 

•'Captain Loring proposed to give Up a number of American seamen? 
who, he said, were in his fleet, if Captain Phillips would give him English 
subjects for them.* Captain PhilUps refused this offer, and the American 
seamen were not delivered to him. Before any of the men were retuni- 
ed, he sent a message to Captain Phillips, to let him know. If he, or one of 
Ills officers, would go on board of him, and point out who were Americans 



"This proposition was made after commodore Loring had ordered fifty- 
five men out of the Baltimore, and detained five of them, as being British 
subjects, without giving an equal number of Ameticans, whom he acArns-a'- 
Ifdged to have on board. 



8 

and who were not, he would return all the Americans; but this was de- 
clined also. After we got on board of the Baltimore, he sent a letter to 
Capt. Phillips, which he showed to us, in which the commodore "demand- 
ed" that he would give up all the British subjects on board the Baltimore. 
To this, captain Phillips replied, that he could not know any of his men 
as British subjects, nor could he, as commander of a ship in the service of 
the United States, voluntarily give up any of his men; but if he thought fit 
to send an officer on board, witli orders to taijeany number of his men, he 
should not oppose it. In this answer, captain Phillips mentioned he should 
lay before the Executive of the United States, a full account of the occur- 
rences of the day. Shortly after sending this reply, the squadron set sail 
and left the Baltimore. Commodore Loring was very polite to us, and 
was so to Captai.i Phillips, when he went on board; but Captain Phillips 
complained of indecent behaviour from the inferior officers." 



Captain Phillips' accoxmt of this affair, is asfollo-ws: 

While he was convoying a fleet of merchant vessels, from Charleston, 
S. C. to Havana, he discovered a British squadron; and knowing the vex- 
atious detentions, and sometimes captures, to which our merchant vessels 
were exposed, from British cruizers, and anxious to see those under his 
charge safe in port, he hoisted the signal of alarm, directing all the vessels 
under his convoy to spread all their canvass and use every exertion in 
their power to gain the port of Havana. As soon as he perceived that his 
signal was understood, he bore up for the flag ship of the squadron, in or- 
der to divert its attention trom the fleet under his convoy; every one of 
which, excepting the three mentioned by Messrs. Trezevant and Tim- 
mons, succeeded in getting into port. Those three, after a few hours de- 
tention, were released, and arrived safe. 

When the Baltimore had got up to the flag ship, commodore Loring in- 
vited Captain Phillips on board the Carnatick, who accepted the invitation. 
While on board, commodore Loring informed him, that he should take 
out of the Baltimore such men as had not American protections; to which 
captain Phillips replied, that such a proceeding could not but be consider- 
ed as an indignity to the flag of the United States, which, of itself, accord- 
ing to the usages and customs of nations, protected every individual sail- 
ing under it, and particularly those in an armed national ship; that if com- 
modore Loring persisted in the determination he expressed, he, captain 
Phillips, would, in that event, be constrained, by the great inferiority of 
his force, to surrender his ship. 

Captain Phillips then returned to the Baltimore, where he found his 
crew mustered, ^vith the consent of his Jirst lieutenant, obtained in his 
absence, by a British officer, who had the muster roll of the ship in his 
hand, and in the act of executing the commission upon which he had been 
sent, viz. "to take from the Baltimore, such men as had not American pro- 
tections." The British officer announced his errand to captiun Phillips, 
with an expression of his regret at having been charged with so unplea- 



sant a commJssion,vvhich, hcvv'ever, he was bound to execute. Capt. Phil, 
lips took the muster roll from his hand, ordered his crew to quarters, desired 
the British officer to walk the leeward side of the quarter deck, until he 
should decide as to the reply which it became him to make, in a case so ex- 
traordinary in its character. Had he have yielded to the first impulse of 
his feelin^^s, he would have destroyed the British boats first sent to his ship 
and prevented llie otfict-r from executinsj his commission, until, by the ex- 
ercise of force, tlie IJi-itish squadron should have compelled him to sur- 
render his ship; but recollectins? that he had no commission, no paper re- 
cognizing the Baltimore as a national ship, and adverting to the instruc- 
tions under which he was cruizing, which, in his opinion, indicated an ex- 
treme disinclination, on the part of the government, to pursue any other 
tiian the most conciliatory course of conduct towards all nations, except- 
ing France, he determined to consult Mr. Trezevant, luho had just come on 
board, a lawyer by profession, and abide by his advice on the occasion. He 
went into his cabin, and there informed Mr. Trezevant, that he had not a 
solitary paper signed by the President of the United States, excepting the 
laws, which any individual might obtain, by purchase or otherwise and 
wliich could not be considered as indicating the national character of his 
ship, and he submitted his saiHng instructions, (of 9ih August, 1798,) of 
which the following is an extract: 

"The vessels of every other nation, (except France,) are on no account 
to be molested; and 1 wish particularly to impress on your mind, that should 
you even see an American vesst.1, captured by the armed ship of any na- 
tion at war with whom we are at peace, you cannot lawfully mterfere to 
prevent the capture, for it is to be taken for granted, that such nation will 
compensate for such capture, if it should prove to have been illegally 
made." Mr. Trezevant, having considered the subject, advised captain 
Phillips not to resist the execution of commodore boring's order, but to 
let him take his own course, protest against it, and refer the case to his 
government. Captain Phillips then went upon deck, and informed the 
British officer of his decision, which was that advised by Mr. Trezevant. 

Captain Phillips then struck his flag, and inibrmcd coii^modore Loring 
that the United States' ship Baltimore was Surrendered to the squadron 
under his command; and fifty-five of the crew were taken away. 

After a short detention, commodore Loring, in consequence of a spe- 
cial note written by captain Phillips to him, and apprehensive, it is pre- 
sumed, of his conduct not being approved by his government, to whom 
he knew, from Captain Phillips' communication, it would necessarily be 
made known, sent back fifty of the men he had taken from the Baltimore, 
retaining five; and he then made the proposition stated by Messrs. Tre- 
zevant and Timmons, and after receiving captain Phillips' reply, he set 
sail with his squadron, and left the Baltimore. 

CaptainPhillips, finding that the British squadron declined taking pos- 
session of his vessel, which had been surrendered, re-hoisted his flag, 
went into Havana, where he obtained necessary supy)lies, and taking un- 
der his protection a number of homeward bound vessels, returned to the 

B 



10 

Chesapeake, and immeJiately proceeded to Philadelphia, and submitted 
to the Secretary of the Navy a narrative of this outrag;^, stating minutely 
his own conduct and that of commodore Loring. He expressed, to the 
Secretary of the Navy, his wisli to have a personal inter\'iew with the 
President of the United Stat'js, that he might answer any questions which 
the President might propound to him. The reply led him to believe that 
his conduct would not be disappr')ved, and tliat an interview with the Presi- 
dent would be altogether unneces:;ary; that he might return to Baltimore, 
where he would receive further orders, resspecting the destination of his 
ship. He, accordingly returned to Baltimore; but two days after his arri- 
val there, instead of receiving orders for service, as he had been led to 
expect, and for which he was preparing himself, he received, to his utter 
astonish n-ient, a letter, (!Oth January, K99 ) from the Secretary, dismiss- 
ing him from the Naval service of the United States. 



The following letter* from the Secretary of the JVavij, to Captain Phillips 
-loill shoxo the grounds on which he was dismissed; lOth January. 1799. 
"SIR • ''Your narrative of the transartion with the Bi itisfi Captain, near 
the Havana, has been attentively considered; and with every disposition to 
make allowance for the unprecedented situation, to which you were ex- 
posed, it is impossible to find an excuse for some parts of your conduct; 
among these, it will be sufficient to mention your tume submission to the or- 
ders of the British lieutenant, on board yotir own ship. 

If you could not have resisted the assumption of the command of your 
own ship, by that officer, a point not to be admitted, surely, you might 
have contented yourself with passive submission; but you descended fur- 
ther, and actually obeyed his orders, to have all hands called, and to give 
hira a list of their names. Under circumstances so degrading, it is im- 
proper that you should hold a conimission in the Navy service of the 
United States; and I am commanded by the President to inform you, that 
your services are no longer required 

"I am, respectfully, yoiu- most obedient servant, 

"BKN. STODDERT." 

This letter of Mr. Secretary Stoddert, from the circum- 
stances under which it was written, is a most extraordinary- 
document. He says, "my narrative of the transaction with 
the British Captain has been atteiitiveLij considered;*' and 
yet the very first para.i^raph of his letter closes with a 
charge, which, by any fair rule of construction known in 
our language, it is impossible to infer from the narrativct 

*This 's hot the letter received by Captain Fhiliips, but one which was 
substituted in its place, which is proved by a letter from I). Winchester, 
Rsq. to Captain Phillips. 



11 

There is not a word in it, on wliicli such a rhareje can be 
justly founded; or even an inference be fairly drawn: but 
on the contrary, they are directly and positively contra- 
dicted by a full statement of the facts. What was my 
*Hame submission to the orders of the British Lieutenant, on 
board my own ship?''' Does the narrative contain any thing 
from which such a cliarg^e can be made? His letter pur- 
ports to have been predicated upon my narrative which he 
had so ^'attentively considered," and yet it breathes a spirit 
foreign to its impoit, and contains allegations falsified by 
its express terms, l^ its meaning and purpose explained 
in the succeeding paragraph, where I am charged with 
^fdescending to obey his orders; have all hands called and 
giving him a list of their names?^'' The narrative does not 
charge me with doing these things, but, on the contrary, it 
states that I had no agency whatever in any of them; that 
they took place while I was absent from my ship; and so 
far from my giving him a muster roll, or list, as he calls 
it, I took tl»e one he had received from my Lieutenant, from 
him, when I cr.me on board. Every fact and circumstance 
detailed in this narrati\e contradicts the assertions con- 
tained in this singular production, and prove that these 
charges were souglit after; that they were far-fetched, 
false and unfounded. Whether they were maliciously made, 
also, the public will judge, when the whole case is before 
them. 

There is one circumstance, however, that is proper for 
me to notice here. This letter published in the Chronicle, 
is a record of one purporting to have been sent to me by 
the Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Stoddert, by the direction 
of the President of the United States, notifying me of my 
dismissal from the naval service of my country, for reasons 
therein rontained. These reasons never had existence in 
fact, nor had the Secretary any authoi-ity for assigning 
them as the cause of my dismissal. For if his own declara- 
tions are to be taken for proof, all the foundation he had 
for the reasons he assigned, was contained in my nar- 
rative, and it is believed, that none can be found there. — 



1^ 

This letter, it must be rememljer'ed too, was written by the 
Secretary; it bears his si,£^nature, and was ])nt upon the 
records of the Navy department, over which he tlien jne- 
sided by himself, or by his order, for it is there found, and 
published to the world, as the record of the one sent to me. 
In the presence of that j)ul)lic wiiose judi^inent I invoke in 
this matter, I most solemnltj denij that this is a record of 
the letter of dismissal which was sent to me by Mr. Stod- 
dert, but a letter of a different character and import 
throughout. I absolutely deny that 1 ever received, at any 
time, from any person, such a letter as is here published; 
nor did I know tiiat such an one was in existence, until I 
saw it in the Naval Chronicle. Had I received such a let- 
ter as this, containing such palpable falsehoods and bold 
misstatements, at a time too, when I could so easily have 
refuted them and have justified myself, to the most inter- 
ested and credulous; the power of the united world sliould 
not have stifled my demand for a public investigation of 
my conduct. I would have been heard and judged by my 
countiymen, at least, if there had been a press in the nation 

W'itli independence enough to have published the truth. 

But I repeat, that no sucii letter was ever received by me 
at anytime. The one I did leceive, simply informed me 
of my dismissal, witiiout assigning a single reason for it. 
I shall not rest this fact upon my naked assertion; but I 
will prove it, and when the evidence is produced, I trust it 
will be satisfactory. This evidence may do more: it may 
furnish reasoris for this extraordinary record. For man 
never acts without motives, and ''facts are such stubborn 
things," that motives may sometimes be drawn from them. 
It may, perhaps, be asked, wiiy I did not immediately 
demand an investigation of my conduct? I did, and it was 
denied me, by Mr. Stoddert, in the name of the President. 
It may also be demanded, why I did not then publish the 
facts to the world. This is my answer. Mr. Stoddert in- 
formed me, in answer to my demand for a trial, that the 
President assumed the right to dismiss an officer of the army 
omavy without a trial, and in my case he had exercised 



13 

that right, and that notliing further could he done. I had 
then no reason to suppose tliat any unfair management 
had been practised towards me. Previou.slv to n»y leaving 
Philadelphia, Mr. Stoddert informed me that the Presi- 
dent was perfectly satisfied with my conduct; that an in- 
terview, at that time, was unnecessary, as lie was desirous 
I should return to Baltimore without any (':lay, and pre- 
pare imnif tliately for another cruise, for which he then gave 
me some directions. This conversation took place in Mr, 
Stoddert's office, on the 9th day of January, 1799. and in 
confirmation of what he then said; to shew l»is sincerity, 
and to silence ail disquietude in my mind, he then handed 
me my commission, u'hich I had never before received, re- 
ferring back to the date of my appointment in the service. 
I left Philadelphia the same day, and returned to Baltimore. 
Under these circumstances, judge of my surprise, when, 
instead of receiving my final orders by the next mail, as I 
had been told I should, I received my dismissal from the 
service. With every appearance of the most perfect satis- 
faction witii my whole conduct in this affair; of his and the 
President's undiminished confidence; after confirming this 
by repeated declarations; after requiring my further, and 
immediate services; giving me my commission and a part 
of my instructions for another cruise; yet on the very next 
day after all this nad taken j)lace, on the 1 0th day of Janua- 
ry, 1799, this same Mr. Stoddert prepares and sends me a 
letter of dismissal from the service; and if he is to be be- 
lieved, this very letter ivhich now appears of record predi- 
cated too upon my narrative^ which had been in his hands 
long before my commission was handed to me; before any 
of the circumstances now enumerated had taken place, and 
before my services were again required. How, I ask, did 
all this hai'pen? Was not every part of my conduct as well 
known on the 9th, as it was on the lOth of January? Did 
not u»y narrative contain the same evidence of my miscon. 
duct when my commission was delivered to me, tiiat it did 
the next day? If tlie President was satisfe.l with my con- 
duct when he signed my commission, which is certainly a 



14 

fair presumption, tlid any tliin.^ liappen to change his opin- 
ion the ihxy after? The evidence did not alter, and if the 
Secretary is entitled to credit, it ivas the same and no other^ 
than tiiat which lay hefore him when my commission was 
made nut; if he is 7jo/. then we must seek elsewliere for an 
explanation of this mysterious conduct. ' I felt so indig- 
nant, that in two days from the time when I had received, 
through the ])roper organ, Mr. Secretary Stoddert, tjje 
viostwiqunlifed assurances of the approbation and cnvfdence 
of my government; w hen it is hardly possible that any 
thing new could have transpired to change the feelings and 
opinions of the President, or even the Secreiarij, towards 
me, to he basely dismissed from the service without a hear- 
ing, or a cause being assigned for such an harsh and sum- 
mary pr(»ceeding; and when I afterwards demanded a trial, 
and tiiat was refused, I scorned to apply a second time, 
even for redress of my wrongs. I retired from the service 
with disgust, at conduct so unjust and capricious. I then 
believed, that I was sacrificed as a kind n^ peace offering to 
satisfy some stroke of policy. I supposed the President 
had exercised the power, however unjustly, that he thought 
he possessed, and would not recede. I concluded he would 
fear my justification, after what had taken place, lest the 
injustice he had done me should recoil upon himself, and 
increase tiiat popular clamor which had already become 
formidable. Proud in tiie integrity of my own conduct, I 
disdained to beg as a favor, what, as a right, to which I 
thought myself entitled, had been denied me — a public trial. 
The Chronicle proceeds: 

It is greatly to be regretted, lliat captain Phillips' original narrative 
has slian d the fate of many other official documents; it being burnt, in 
1814,_:,nd that no copy was retained by captain Phillips himself, nor any 
record by the Navy nepartment, where it ought to have been recorded, 
with the letter founded upon it. This is a defect, which can be but par- 
tially supplied, by the memory of those who read the narrative soon after 
it was received. We distinctly remember to have read it with great at- 
tention, and that there were passages in it, justifying the inferences 
drawn by Mr. Secretary Stoddert; such passages for instance, as the fol- 
lowing:— •' When the British lieutenant arrived on board, he required the 



15 

iiiuster roll of the ship, which was delivered to him, and the men were 
mustei'ed." But c.iptuin Phillips did not say, di- vt/fom the muster roll 
was delivered, nor bt/ 7vhom tlie men were mustered. His own subsequent 
statement shows, tliat he was not on board the Haltimoi-e at the time these 
transactions took place — that when he g>ot on board, he found the muster 
roll in the hands of the British lieutenant, took it from him, desired'him 
to walk the leeward side of the quarter deck, until he could make up his 
mind as to the course of conduct it became him to pursue, and retiring 
into his. cabin, consulted Mr. Trezevant, and finally, agreeably to his ad- 
vice, returned again upon deck, and ir.formed ^he British lieutenant, that 
he should not resist the execution of commodore Loring's order- but 
protest against it — and submit a full statement of the occurrence to his 
government. He then struck his flag, and fifty-five of his crew were 
taken away. 

When captain Phillips received the Secretary's letter, dismissing him, 
he requested, in terms, not over courteous, an opportunity of justifying 
his conduct before a court martial; and stated that his narrative had been 
presented, not for the purpose of defending his proceedings, but rather 
to enable the government to communicate with, and obtain redress from 
the British government, for the outrage committed on our national flag; 
that there were many circumstances essential to his defence, not men- 
tioned in the narrative. \ court was, however, refused him; and he has 
ever since felt himself to have been unjustly, if not cruelly treated, on 
this occasion. 

One of his friends, in the year 1820, undertook to communicate with 
the late President, Mr. \.dams, with a view to ascertain his sentiments 
upon the subject, the dismissal having occuried<luring his Presidential 
term; and the following will show the result: 

The narrative pubhshed in the Chronicle, is the same in substance as 
the one first delivered to the Secretaiy. They do not deviate in a single 
material pomt. Besides which, the statement of President Adams con- 
firms it. 

Extract of a letter f'om Doctor Baijamin IVaterhoxise , to Captain Isaac 
J^hillips, dated Cambridge, bth August^ 1 820. 

"Having heard from you, and oftener from others, an account of your 
sudden dismissal from the service of the United States, in the administra- 
tion of President Adams, and having always heard it spoken of as a hard 
case, I was determined, the first good opportunity, to speak to Mr. Adams 
on the subject. Such an one occurred, and I improved it. 

"His narrative of the afJ'air corresponded witli your own. He said that 
commodore Loring fell in with the United States' sloop of war which you 
commanded, and being in a ship of the line, accompanied with several 
frigates, he caused you to be boarded, and by force took from you fifty- 
five men, which it was not in your power to prevent, unless you blew 
your ship up; tliat you directly thereupon struck your colors, and judi- 
ciously surirendered yourself to such an irresistible force; but that the 



16 

•British commodore refused to take your ship, or to consider her as cup., 
tared, and insisted that you should re-hoist your colors, and go from him^ 
whifh you very properly refused to do, but demanded of him the men 
he had impressed; aud that you then wrote to the commodore, reiterating 
your demand, and giving^ him vour reasons for persistir.g in considering 
yourself captured by a greatly superior force; all of which, Mr. Adams 
said, was very proper, and just ;ts it should be. That, when commodore 
Lorintr found, by your le ter, that il was not a contest between an \meri- 
can captain of a sloop of war, and the commander of an Eng'lish squadron, 
but was like to be a national question, he sent fifty of the impressed men 
back to your ship, and retained five. Upon this, it seems, you unliiclrily 
re-hoisted your colors, and proceeded on your way. You did not suffi- 
ciently consider, that by the forcible detention of those five men, the so- 
vereigjnty of the nation, of which your colors were the emblem, was for- 
cibly prostrated and disgraced, and that it was left to the nation to vindi- 
cate and revenge the insult. It was this error of judgment, that cost you 
your commission. 

"There are cases, and yours was one of them, where Kings and Repub- 
lics find it expedient to sacrifice an individual to establish an important 
principle. The British have done it often. But then the King, who is 
a permanent chief magistr.ite, takes care to apply a healing plaster to the 
wounded officer; and after a year or two's suspension, gives him a larger 
shipj or H more profitable employ. But this cannot always be done in 
such a government as ours. When a President retires to private life, his 
successor may, possibly, not feel himself disposed to soothe all the pain- 
ful feelings excited by a predecessor." 

It will beppvceived, that Doctor Waterhouse, in this let- 
ter, after relating the observations of Mr. Adams, proceeds 
to put his own construction upon my errors. At first sight^ 
it might be supposed, he had only given us the opinions of 
Ml*. Adams, relative to the transaction, which was the sub- 
ject of their conversation. But a moment's reflection will 
convince any one, without other testimony, tlian his know- 
ledge of Mr. Adams, that it is impossible he ever could 
have thought, that my ^'relioistin^ my Jlag, and proceeding 
on mij 76'fljy," as the Doctor terms it. was an error. The 
wrong was suffered wlien the men were taken from my 
sljip, by a force I could not resist. The disgrace to the 
American flag was then consummated, and it was not ia 
my power to have prevented it. IMie aggression was com- 
mitted and tlie character of this outrage upon our national 
sovereignty would not have altered, had I remained where 



17 

I was till doom's-day, ov have followed the British squad- 
ron into Portsmouth. It is impossible for a man, with the 
clear and discriminating mind, sound judgment^ and purity 
of principle, for which Mr. Adams has, all his life, been 
eminently distinguisiied, ever to Iiave come to the conclu- 
sion, that by this act, I had compromised the character of 
the American flrfg, and the dignity of the nation. Hp never 
could have believed from the history of this ti'ansaction, 
frpm all tiiat had been said or written uj)on the subject, 
that [ did not perfectly understand, that the detention of 
Jive men out of my crew, was as much a violation of our 
national rights, as if the whole creio had been forcibly 
taken away from me, and detained against my will. The 
particular injury might have been greater in one case than 
the other, but the !iational insult, the indignity offered to 
the American flag, would have been the ssime in both. It 
did not require the j)rofound talents of President Adams, 
or the extensive learning and research of my excellent 
friend, Doctor Waterhouse, to illustrate a proposition, plain 
and intelligible to the greatest dunce in the navy, or I may 
add, in the nation. And as to any error of judgment, I am 
at a loss to determine in what that consisted, unless it was 
that I did not remain, God knows how long, till this time, 
perhaps, where the British left me. I would like to know 
what could have been expected of me? I had struck my 
Jlag, and surrendered my ship to a superior force, which I 
could neither resist or escape from; the British refused to 
take possession of her, sailed away and left me. What in 
this emergency was to have been done? Should I have 
followed tliem, remained where I was, till drifted by the 
winds and tide to some other station, or have pursued my 
voyage? Common sense seems to point out but one course, 
and t!iat I pursued; and few men, it is believed, under simi- 
lar circumstances, would have acted differently. And yet, 
if the impressions of Doctor Waterhouse are correct, this 
was an error of judgment that cost me my commission. If 
this is true, it was well gotten rid of. If, circumstanced as 
I was, with such instructions as J hofd, my commission was 
C 



18 

forfeited for such a cause, it was not wortli jmssessing. It 
would have disgraced any honorable man to have held the 
paltry thing for a single hour, by such a tenure. If this 
was disgracing the American flag, what indignities has it 
not since suffered, without a murmur! President Adams 
never could have formed such an opinion, or for a single 
moment, have entertained such a notion. And had my 
worthy friend, the Doctor, been as much at home in this 
affair, as he usually is in what he undertakes, he never 
would have cherished so wild a fancy. 

Besides, tiiis is entirely a new charge; altogether differ- 
ent in character, from those alleged against me, with so 
much confidence, by Mr. Secretary Stoddert in his record- 
ed letter of dismissal. He says I was dismissed for sub- 
mitting to the orders of a British officer; for calling my men, 
and giving him a list of their names: in short, for assisting 
him to disgrace my own flag. And yet, notwithstanding 
all this, I was commissioned in the service by this same 
Mr. Stoddert, immediately after all these degrading and 
unqfficer-like acts were known to the government, and the 
nation. Is this to be credited by sober, thinking, well in- 
formed men? There is, however, moretrutii in the follow- 
ing remark, in the letter of Doctor \Yaterhouse, ''that 
kings and reinihlics sometimes fnd it expedient to sncrifcc 
an individual to establish an important principle." But in 
my rase, if a sacrifice was required, it was not to establish 
a principle, but to shift the responsibility for errors, from 
those who had cor mitted them, to others, against whom, 
a i)rctext for blame miglst be seized upon, with some pros- 
pect of success. On tlie receipt of the foregoing letter, I 
wrote to Doctor Waterhouse. 

Inciter from Captain Isaac Fhillips, to Doctor Benjamin 
Water house, dated 19 th August, 1820. 

Baltimore, 19th August, 1820. 
J)octor Benjamin WaterJicuse, 

De\r SiR--Owing to circumstances, I have not had aw 
opportunity to acknowledge the receipt of your esteemed 
€avor of the 9th ultimo, dated at Philadelphia. 



19 

A lew days since, I liad the pleasure of receiviiij? youu 
higlily esteemed letter, dated Cambridge, 5tli instant, which 
1 assure you has caused me more pleasure than any letter 
I have received during' life, the subject of which, is most 
interesting to my feelings, and on which you will have to 
excuse my long remarks. I feel grateful for the interest 
you have discovered, in making me the subject of conver- 
sation with the venerable Mr. Adams, as well as for his 
free communication relative to my sudden dismissal from 
the naval service of the United States. I cannot but ex- 
press my sui'prise, that Mr. Adams should have recollected 
so many circumstances attending that extremely unfor- 
tunate affair, which occui'red between myself and the 
squadron under the command of Commodore Loring; 
consisting of the Carnatic, 74, Thunderer, 90 guns, Queen 
of 90 guns, and I think three frigates, which I fell in with 
in the United States ship Baltimore, off the port of Havana, 
while convoying a fleet of about thirty sail of Americans 
from Charleston, S. C, all of whicii obeyed my signal in 
time to arrive at Havana, except two or three ships, which 
the British frigate cut off before they could pass the Moro 
at the mouth of the port, but which were, however, releas- 
ed, in a few hours, and arrived safe. 

You have stated many of the most important circum- 
stances connected with that affair, but I feel it necessary, 
even at this late period, to notice one very important fact, 
of which I am apprehensive Mr. Adams has always been 
ignorant, as the knowledge of it, would have criminated 
the then Secretanj of the JVavijt Mr. Benjamin Stoddert^ 
whose neglect should have cost him his office. I allude to 
the fact of his ordering me to sail without forwarding me 
my commission, which I never received, and consequently 
had none on board — nor had 1 any document to shew that 
she was a slup of war of the United States, nor even the 
signature of the President to any paper on hoard, except 
to the printed acts of Congress. I fortunately, or unfor- 
tunatehj, had my appointment in the Navy, the only docu- 
ment I had to prove the character of the ship, if I had n«t 



;S0 

have had this document, Commodore Loriiig oug'lit to have 
captured my ship, and treated myself and crew as Pirates: 
I ought to state also, that in my private letter fi'om Mr. 
Stoddert, I was instructed, *nn case any unpleasant occur- 
rence should take place between me, or my ship, and a ship 
or ships of war of any power, with widch the Uniled States 
•were at peace, to act on terms of conciliation.'''' This lan- 
guage made a deep impression on my mind, and seemed 
to anticipate some such occurrence as did take place. 

Thus situated, it only remained for me to act as would, 
in ray opinion, meet the approhation of the government. — 
On my j'eturn, I went to Philadelphia, and handed a nar- 
rative of the transaction to tlie Secretary of the Navy, re 
questing the indulgence of a personal interview with the 
President, in order to ansvi^er any questions he might think 
proper to ask me. Tiie Secretary replied, that it was un- 
necessary, as the President was satisfied with my conduct 
and requested me to return to Baltimore, if I wanted to stay 
with my family for a few days, where he would send me 
orders respecting the future destination of my ship. I im- 
mediately left Philadelphia, the next day arrived home — . 
and on the second day after my arrival, to my utter aston- 
ishment, instead of the approbation of my government, I 
received a dismissal from the service of thp United States, 
without assigning any reason for so precipitate a measure. 
The news of which soon became public among all parties, 
and all expressed their surprise. My house was filled with 
gentlemen of both political parties, offering advice. The 
republicans urged me to publish the whole transaction, in- 
cluding my private instructions. The federalists reprobated 
this advice, suggesting, that if the government had found 
it necessary to sacrifice me — they would in some short 
time give me a larger sliip, and that I ouglit not to pub- 
lish my private ijistructions on any account. I was ruled 
by the latter advice. I however, applied to the Secretary 
of the Navy for a trial by court martial — his answer was, 
that it was inadmissible, that the President had the riglit 
to dismiss any olFicer from the service without giving any 



reason for the act. Here ended all negotiations with the 
Navy Department, and left me quietly to conclude myself 
sacrificed; my honor and character as an oflicer disgraced; 
an inexpressible injury done to my feelings, tlie sense of 
whicli 1 cannot yet forget. I wish you to be informed, 
that it was altogether the wish of my federal friends here, 
that I accepted a command in the service, and not an honor 
of my own seeking; btjt 1 had the vanity to suppose my- 
self as capable to command a ship of war as most men in 
the Uiiiled States; inasmuch as 1 was at sea in ships of 
war duriug the greater part of our revolutionary war. 1 
fear 1 am tedious, but you must indulge me in remai-king 
upon some observations in your letter. You say, "upon 
this it seems you unluckily, rehoistedyour colors and pro- 
ceeded on your way," and "which error of judgment cost 
you yf)ur commission;" you might have said forfeited your 
command, for commission I had none. Now, my good 
friend, what could 1 do. Fifty out of the fifty-five im- 
pressed men, were returned to my ship, and the great 
Commodore Loving, had notliing further to say to me, 1 had 
struck ray colors and surrendered my ship, and he had re- 
fused to receive her. I repeat, what was I to do? Ought 
I to have remained at sea, or proceed on my destination, 
by convoying a fleet of merchantmen from Havana to the 
United States. I chose tlie latter, and in the performance 
of that duty, studied tiic best interest of the merchant ser- 
vice, and consequently, that of my counti'y. 

It may he urged, that I ouglit not to have sailed without 
my commission. This was my opinion, for after my ship 
was manned and ready, I waited two days for ray commis- 
sion, but it was not sent, and the committee (whose duty 
it was to fit out my ship, as one of the subscription ships,) 
became very uneasy, stating that there was an hundred 
sail of American merchant ships waiting at Havana for 
convoy home, wliich convoy was to consist of the Constel- 
lation, Commodore Truxton, and myself in the Baltimore. 
Influenced by the persuasions of this committee, I sailed 
without a commission; and in obedience to my orders, put 
V 



myself under the command of Commodore Truxton, and 
stated to liim my want of that document. He expressed 
his surprise, but remarked, that as I was in company with 
him, the character of my ship would be recognized. I 
was, however, separated from him, by his orders, and suf- 
fered accord itigly. 

At the time the news of tliis transaction reached London, 
I have been informed that Mr, King was enquired ol, what 
course woiihl bo taken relative to this unpleasant business, 
and that Mr. King replied, nothing could be done, inas- 
much as Captain Thillips had no commission. The want 
of this, you see, was every thing, it was indeed all imj)or- 
tant to me. If it had been my fortune to have had it, I 
should have risked the responsibility of the act, and sunk 
the English boats, in case Loring persisted in taking my 
men; but having no commission to justify defensive con- 
duct, I v/as compelled, with reluctance, to submit. Now, 
my good friend, after reading this longej)istle, which I am 
apprehensive you will find tiresome, I think Mr. Adams 
will not say, he should have deprived me of my command, 
without endeavoring to alleviate the wounded feelings of 
an ofiicer, by re-instating him in a superior command, in 
some short time after. I am fully persuaded, that if Mr. 
Adams now filled the Presidential chair of our beloved 
country, he would not hesitate to do justice to an injured 
man. I remain, with great respect, 

Your obedient servant. 

ISAAC PHILLIPS. 

Extract of a letter from Doctor Benjamin Waterliouse, to Captam Isaac 
Phillips, dated Cambridge, I2th September, 1S20. 
«'I write tliis, merely to suv, that directly on receiving your letter, of 
the 19th August, I wrote such a letter to my venerable friend, Mr. Adams, 
as 1 thought proper; but had no answer before to-day. 1 was a little 
fearful, lest I had offended him by my freedom; but I find that the con- 
tents of your letter had made a deep and rather sorrowful impression on 
his mind, for he says ''cajjlain Phillips' letter is a volume of news to me. 
That he sailed without a commission was never known, heard, or sus- 
pected by me, and not one word of his conversation with Mr. Stoddert, 
was ever communicated to me — I will return you his letter, when i have 
read it more deliberately and reflected upon it more maturely. 



23 

^'I clearly perceive, that he is filled with regret at what has happened; 
and I believe, from my knowledge of his love of truth and justice, will try 
to soothe your feelings; but the mode requires deliberate thought, for the 
Secretary of the Navy is dead, and your letter has called up a volume of 
ideas to his mind, that we perhaps, knew nothing of." 

This letter furnishes matter for serious comment. It is 
important from more considerations than one. It serves 
to illucitlate many things, wliich but for this, might, per- 
liaps, appear mysterious and inexplicable. It is always 
painful to disturb the ashes of the dead. There is some- 
thing in the attempt, that usually appears invidious, and 
at which our generous feelings are apt to revolt. No man 
will do it from choice, yet there are cases where no motives 
of scrupulous delicacy should prevent a fair and impartial 
examination of the conduct of men, who are no longer alive 
to justify themselves. Justice to myself demands it in the 
present case, and I sliall enter upon the task, boldly, fear- 
lessly, and I trust, impartially, with as much candor as the 
subject demands. My reputation is as dear to me, as ano- 
ther's can be to him. I am surrounded by social ties as 
tender, and which I cherish as fondly as any man. I have 
friends and connexions, whose reputation and happiness 
are as dependant upon me, and who are of as much conse- 
quence to the community as the friends and connexions of 
otliers, and whom I am bound to shield from reproach. If 
others may happen to suffer by a just vindication of myself, 
the fault must rest upon those with whom it originated, 
and wlio have driven me to the measure — it lies not at my 
door. 

How then, did it happen, that I was compelled to sail 
upon this voyage without my commission; after having 
used every mean in my power to obtain it, without suc- 
cess, and after having procrastinated the period of my 
sailing to the last moment possible? How did it liappen, 
that every commissioned and warrant officer in my ship, 
was in the same situation: although that fact was unknown 
to me till some time after we had been at sea, while the 
fact that I had not my commission, was entirely unknown 



on board my ship. How should it have happened, that the 
circumstance was never known to the President? **That 
he never heard or suspected such a tfdng?^' " That my con- 
versalion with Mr. Stoddert, after my retunu was never 
communicated to him, or mtj statement made known''^ — al- 
though I was pretendedly dismissed from the service in his 
name, for reasons drawn from this very statement. Why 
was I advised by the Secretary not to see the President, 
and informed that he was perfectly satisfied with my con- 
duct, and at the same tinie, hurried away to Baltimore for 
further service, as though all my conduct, was indeed, 
fully approved, and the confidence of my government un- 
shaken — and then, in two days afterwards, instead of re- 
ceiving an order, and instructions for service, as I had every 
reason to expect, why was a naked letter of dismissal from 
the service sent me, without assigning a single reason for 
such an extraordinary change of feeling, of purpose and 
of opinion. This letter was calculated to induce a proud 
minded man, conscious of having done his duty faithfully, 
in conformity with his instructions, of having committed 
no errors, to retire with indignant contempt at conduct^ 
so manifestly unjust, undignified, unfair and capricious. 

Why, let me ask, was a letter of a different character 
framed for the purpose, placed upon the records; assigning 
causes for my dismissal which had no foundation in truth, 
as though it was necessary to provide for some subsequent 
contingency which might hereafter happen; assigning' 
causes too, which had the facts been so, might seem to jus- 
tify the conduct of the government, and while my narrative 
was withheld from the President, and the peculiar circum- 
stances in which I was placed, were wholly nnknown to 
him, should the conduct of the Secretary afterwards be- 
come the subject of remark, or of enquiry, an examina- 
tion of the records would seem to be correct: especially, 
as I had not appeared before the President to explain my 
conduct, and from aught that appears of record, I had 
yielded a pliant submission to my /ate, as though I felt con- 
scious that it was merited. 



25 

When all these tliioj^s are considered — when it is taken 
into view, that it was the duty of the Secretary to have 
sent me my commission, and to have seen that my officers, 
erew and vessel, were supi)lied with every public document 
which might be required fi'om the government for tlieir 
protection; to establish our character, and the character 
of our ship, for tlie service in which we wei'e engaged, 
before the vessel went to sea — when the consequences 
which might result, and actually had resulted from a total 
neglect of all these are considered — that the blame would 
rest exclusively on the Secretary — that it was such a cul- 
pable neglect of his official duties, as could scarcely be pal- 
liated, or justified, and that the transaction was likely 
to become a subject of investigation by the government, 
the light bursts upon us at once. The motives of the Se- 
cretary, which probably led to this strange and unprece- 
dented procedure, are explained in characters, as legible, 
as though written, by the finger of God, with a sun- 
beam. 

I demanded of Mr. Stoddert a trial. But what evi- 
dence is there that my demand ever reached the President: 
that it ever went any farther than the secretary himself? 
Is it to be presumed, that he who had already discovered 
so much ingenuity to prevent an interview between us, by 
which an explanation would inevitably have followed — the 
whole transaction with commodore Loring have been ex- 
plained — his own conduct have been exposed, and himself 
have been rendered responsible for whatever might have 
ensued — would he have suffered a public investigation of 
my conduct, in this affair, to have taken place, if within 
his power to have prevented it? Would he have facilitated 
a measure, by whfth the very event he most dreaded, must 
have been realized? No, it would be spreading the veil 
of charity something wider than it would reascnably bear, 
to presume it. 

[n the letters which follow of the 12th of '^ovember, 
1820, and the 8th of March, 1821, president Ada ns again 
Bepeats that he "never knew, heard, or suspecte that I 
D 



26 

Mikd tvithout my commission" — «//;af he has no recoUeC' 
Hon that he ever gave orders faviny dismission^ or consent- 
ed to it.''' If the contrary had been true, is it likely he 
would have forgotten It? The conduct of commodore Lor- 
ing created, at the time, a national excitement, that was 
felt throughout the country. It was not considcied a 
trifling matter: The indignity to the American flag was 
felt — the outrage was loudly complained of, at least, by one 
party. The nation liad become involved in the aff"air, and 
it is hardly to be presumed, when the president recollect- 
ed every other circumstance connected with the transac- 
tion with so much precision, that he should have forgotten 
the most important feature in it, the one which gave it all 
its character, and the only one which had cost the Ameri- 
can commander his commission. The all important fact 
too, that I sailed without my commission; that there was 
not a paper or document on board my ship, that bore his si^na- 
ture, or proclaimed her national character, and that he, never- 
theless, had made me alone responsible for all the consequen- 
ces which had followed, and had punished me \vith such se- 
verity, as to dismiss me from the service without a hearing, 
are circumstances entirely forgotten by him; or rather he dis- 
avows his knowledge of, or participatiori in, them. Is it, I say, 
to be presumed, that if he had ever ordered my dismission 
upon any terms, that he would have forgotten it? W^as it 
such an every day transaction, or so common to dismiss 
officers ^from the service, in this summary way, that my 
case made no impression among the number? Or was mine 
the only case which had occurred, and, therefore, most 
likely to have been remembered? No, he never would 
have forgotten any of these things, if they had taken place 
within his knowledge, by his authority, or consent. And 
the opinion that immediately follows, *'that I never was 
dismissed,'''' shews conclusively what he then thought and 
still thinks of my case. 

E.ciract of a letter from Doctor Benjamin WaterJiouse, to Captain Isaac 
Phillips, dated Cambridge, 12th J\''ovember, 1820. 
"It is but two days since President Adams, returned to nae your letter, 
of Auj^ust I'Jlh. I am convinced tliat it has occasioned him a grea^ 



S7 

deal of thought, in which regret has predominated; and this, we need 
not wonder at, when we consider, that he is, that rare character a con- 
scientious statesman. He repeats, in strong terms, that he never knew, 
Iieard or suspected, that you sailed without a commission. He says, he 
has no recollection that he ever gave orders, or consented to your dis- 
mission. His word-i are, "Indeed I suspect he never luus dismissed, and that 
he is 7101V a captain in the JVavy, as much as ever he ivas. I gi eatly regret 
that Phillips did not come to me in person, and explain the ivhole aff'air himself. 
If he had, lam covfidait he tvoutd have had no reason to complain" 

Same to the same, Sth March, 1821. 

"In a conversation, he, (Mr. Adams,) repeated what he had written to 
me, and I to him. He said, in his opinion, you were still a captain in the 
Navy of the United States; that he never knew you went to sea without 
a commission, and never knew the circumstances of the case, and has not 
the least recolleclion of ordering your dismissal; he should not were he 
now Ih-esident of the United States, consider you otherwise thaii ?. cap. 
tain in the service; but as so long a time has elapsed, and Mr. Stoddert no 
longer here to answer for himself, he did not see what could now be done.'* 

The preceding letters and statements, afford all the information it is 
possible to obtain, in any degree essential to an understanding of the sub- 
jects to which they relate. 

Tlie apparent discrepancy between the statements of Messrs. Treze- 
vant and Timmons, and captain Phillips; the two first, observing that 
they, "were not on board the Baltimore, when she was visited by captairi 
Loring's officers," and the latter stating that he had "consulted Mr. 
Trezevant before he had permitted any of the crew to be taken from the 
ship," appears to be reconciled, by the explanation of captain Phillips, 
who says, that although those gentlemen were not on board the Baltimore 
at the time commodore horing^s officers visited her, yet that Mr. Trezevant 
arrived on hoard luhile they were there, and before any of the crew had been 
taken from her. 

The reader will not fail to observe, that every informatioii with regard 
to the occurrences between the Baltimore and the British squadron, is 
derived from captain Phillips himself. It was from the information given 
to them by him, th:it Messrs. Trezevant and Timmons, wrote their letter 
to Mr. Morton, of the ISth November; and it was upon his narrative of 
the occurrences that the Secretary of the Navy dismissed him, and his 
more recent statement, as to what that narrative was, appears to be con- 
firmed by the recollection of Mr. Adams, as may be seen by referring to 
Doctor VVaterhouse's letter of the 5th August, 1820, where he says, ««his 
narrative of the affair corresponded with your own." 

If captain Phillips' conduct on this occasion had been such as Mr. Stod- 
dert, no doubt, believed it to be, he ought to have been brought to a court 
martial, and his dismissal from the service would, unquestionably, have 
been recommended. It would not have been in his power to have avert- 
ed such a sentence. If he really had not only '^tamely" submitted to tha 



28 

orders of the British lieutenant, but "obeyed" them, he would, indeed, 
have merited the summary punishment he experienced. But in the facts 
stated, we cannot discover in any part of the conduct of captain Phillips, 
either obedience, or tame submission to the British officer. There surely 
was no tame submission in captain Phillips' taking the muster roll from 
th- hand t.>f the British officer, directing him to walk, to the feetmrf/ side 
of the qua.ter-drck and ordering' his crew to quarters; neither can we 
trace his subsequent reluctant yielding without resistance, to the execu- 
tion of captain Loring's order, to an\ base feeling of this sort. Command- 
ing only a small sloop of war, while commodore Loring had *hree ships 
of the line and two frigates, to enforce the execution of his purposes; 
without a commission or any paper from bis government, indicating the 
national character of his ship; fettered by instructions which enjoined 
him, on no account to molest the vessels of any nation, except those of 
France; his situation was highly embarrassing. 

His instructions were not, it appears, construed as they were intended. 
Correctly interpreted, they meant that he should nnt act offensively 
against the vessels of any nation, excepting France. They did not forbid 
his acting defensiveiy. Under the circumstances of the case, it would 
probably have been better for captain Phillips, first to have discharged his 
broadside at the British squadron, and tlien struck his colors. It should 
be a point of honor with a national vessel of war, not to strike her colors 
with gims loaded, if she has an opportunity of discharging them. The 
circumstanceswhich justify her striking her colors, will generally admit 
the previous charge of her guns. But, although this course would pro- 
bably have been more approved than any other on the part of captain 
Phillips, situated as he was, it does not appear to us that his conduct de- 
served severe censure, still less, we conceive, did he merit the summary 
punishment inflicted upon him. 

The power of dismissing a navy officer, without trial, is undoubtedly 
possessed by the Executive; the necessity of such a power being lodged 
in some one of the departments of the government, is at once conceded; 
but it is contended, and we think very justly, that this power should never 
be exercised without great caution, and positive information that the of- 
fence requiring its exercise has actually been committed. If a court mar- 
tial had have been allowed to captain Phillips, there is every reason to 
beUeve that he would have been acquitted, and that another officer would 
have been convicted of the ofience charged upon him, and for which he 
was punished. 

The comments of the editor of the Naval Chronicle 
breathe a spirit of candor which certainly do him credit 
as an historian. It is fair to put the best con.struction upon 
the conduct of a man, that the facts will bear, and what- 
ever may have been the conduct of Mr. Stoddert in rela- 



S9 

tion to inc, the editor of the Chronicle had no reason, iu 
publishing mere matters which appear of rerord, to im- 
pugn his motives, and hold him up to future ages as a mark 
for public censure. It was fair, therefore, extremely fair, 
and charitable too, for the editor to suppose, that Mr. 
Stoddert acted, in my case, from pure motives. He had 
no reason, I suppose, to imagine that any management had 
been resorted to in producing my dismissal from the ser- 
vice. Presuming, theiefore, that the documents found up- 
on record were genuine, he could hardly believe otherwise 
than that Mr. Stoddert acted from proper motives, but 
under wrong impressions, and from wrong information. 
But such are not the facts. Mr. Stoddert was correctly 
informed upon every point in this case, and those who 
believe that he was, will draN^ different conclusions from 
the editor. But why, let me ask, if I had conducted my- 
self in this affair with commodore Loring as Mr. Stod- 
dert asserted, and seemed to imagine, and would certainly 
have the world believe I had, should I have been brought 
to a "court martial,"" if the secretary, or even the presi- 
dent of the United States possessed the power, legally to 
dismiss me without a trial? The very suggestion implies 
a doubt of the existence of such a power in the president, 
although in another part of the same article, it is admitted. 
How far this admission is correct shall hei'eafter be tested. 
The editor admits that the president possesses this power, 
not because it is delegated to him, either in express terms, 
or by necessary implication, but because he thinks such a 
power should be vested some where. What necessity is 
there, let me ask, for the infliction of such a summary 
mode of punishment upon a naval or military officer, any 
more than there is for the execution of a robber of the 
mail, who had murdered the carrier, for example, in the 
commission of the off: nee, without a trial? Because the 
president is compelled to sign the warrant for bis execu- 
tion, after a conviction in due course of law, does it there- 
fore follow, that he may order iiim to be executed without 
a trial? because a man may, in the opinion of the Pre- 



30 

sulent, deserve punishment, does it therefore follow, that 
he has power to inflict it, without a trial by his peers? The 
tiercssity is no .greater in one case than ii is in the other, 
and the law has equally provided for a fair and impartial 
trial in both* although by different tribunals. If this pow- 
er is to be derived and exercised, ex necessitate rei, the 
reason fails altogether — if from provision of law, such pro- 
vision, it is believed, is no where to be found — if from anal- 
ogy, it is equally fatal to its pretensions — but if from nei- 
ther of these, then the conclusion is irresistable, that its 
exercise is an assumption of power, neither sanctioned 
by analogy, necessity or law. But more upon this subject 
hereafter. 

From what authority tiie editor of the Chronicle asserts, 
that it appears my instructions ''were not construed as in- 
tendeds''^ is difficult to determine. 

He has not given us an authentic copy of these instruc- 
tions, and the world is left entirely in the dark in regard 
to their obvious meaning. ''Correctly interpreted^'''' he says, 
'Hhey meant I shonld not act offensively against the vessels 
of any nafion^ except'ing France:^' by which I suppose he 
means, interpreted as their author intended. But is that 
the obvious and plain construction; the common sense 
and import of the language— the meaning that every 
intelligent man of common capacity and information 
will put upon them? For unless we have better examples 
of force and simplicity of style, and grammatical purity 
of language, thsn have frequently been exhibited, even 
from the navy department of our government, it will not 
be concluded, I presume, that because a document or order 
ori;-inates there, that it therefore, contains conclusive evi- 
dence of expressing the author's meaning, even if he had 
one in view; or of being intelligible, or capable of but one 
fair and obvious interpretation. It is no uncommon thing, 
even in these enlightened days, to see a document, eminat- 
ing from higli authority, shrouded in such a mantle of am- 
biguous verbage, or so vastly profound, as to mean any 
thing, at the option of the reader, at least, if not of the 



31 

writer. Whether these Instructions were construed agree- 
ably to their obvious meaning, or not, will appear from 
their examination. 

Having disposed of that portion of the Naval Chroni- 
cle, exclusively applicable to my case, I will proceed to lay 
before the public, such further evidence relating to this sin- 
gular affair, as 1 have been able to obtain. On the 9th of 
July, 1821, I addressed the following letter to the honora- 
ble Smith Thompson, then secretary of the navy. 

Cojnj of a letter from Capt. Phillips, to the Hon. Smith Thomp- 
son^ Secretary of the J\*avij. 

Washington, 9th July, 1821. 

Sir: — Availing myself of your polite offer, made person- 
ally to me, I have to request, that you will be pleased to 
divect the following papers, or copies thereof, to be for-, 
warded to me. 

1st. My a])pointment as Captain in the Navy of the 
United States. 

2d. My orders to take command of the Sloop of War, 
tlie Baltimore. 

3d. The date of my commission, and of the letters trans- 
mitting it to me, if any such were issued or written ; also 
my letter, if any, acknowledging the receipt thereof. 

4th. The sailing and cruising instructions, given to me 
by the then Secretary of the Navy; and particularly a copy 
of the letter which was to govern my conduct on meeting 
with a vessel of war, belonging to a power at peace with 
the United States, and who might attempt to examine, or 
make capture of any vessels, under my convoy, &c. 

5th. Copy of the Secretary of the Navy's letter to me, 
immediately after my return to the United States, from 
my first cruize, if any such was written. 

6th. Copy of my communication to the Secretary of the 
Navy, explanatory of my conduct during the cruize. 

7th. Copy of the letter of the Secretary of the Navy to 
Commodore Truxtun respecting me, and copies of Com- 
modore Truxtun's communications to the Secretary, upon 
the same subject. 



32 

8th. Copy of a letter of tlie Secretary of the Navy, jMns' 
porting to be my dismissal from the service. 

9th. Copies of any rommuiiications that may have pass- 
ed between the President of the United States and the Sec- 
retary of the Navy, in relation to me. 

If, from pressure of business, or any other cause, it should 
be inconvenient to have those ])apers copied in your office, 
and you would ti-ust the originals in the hands of my friend, 
Mr. Goldsborough, he will have them copied for me; but, 
in that case, I shall still have to request that the copies may 
be certified in your office, as being correct. 
I have the honor to be, 

With sentiments of respect, 

Your obedient servant, 
ISAAC PHILLIPS. 
I certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the original, 
on flic in this Department. 

CHARLES HAY, Chief Clerk, 

Navy Dept. 3d June, 1825. 

To the Honourable Smith Thompson, ") 
Secretary of the Navy, U. S. J" 

Letter frorn Smith Thompson, Esq. datcdJ^ravrj Department, July 12th, 1821. 

gjn Agreeably to the request contained in your letter, dated the 9th 

inst. I now enclose to you papers marked A. B. C. D. and E. which fur- 
nish all the information, relative to the several queries that you proposed, 
which appear to be in the possession of this Department. 

The certified papers now furnished, contain, it is believed, ftdl informa- 
tion on alt the points of enquiry, except copies of your own communica- 
tion to the Department, and that of Captain Truxtun, neitherof which is to 
be found on the files for that period. 

As regards your ninth enquiry, requesting ''Copies of any communica- 
tions that may have passed between the President of the United States 
and the Secretary of the Navy, respecting you," I have to observe, that 
there are no records in the Dep.artment, shewing what passed between 
tlie President and the Secretary, in relation to your dismissal from the Na- 
vy of the United States, but, if there had been any, I should have consider- 
ed the same as strictly confidential, and would not, of course, have deemed 
it proper to furnish you any information on the subject. 

I am, respecttully, your obdt. servt. 
SMITH THOMPSON. 

Isaac Phillips, Esq. Ualtimore. 



33 

Extract fvom the Pegister of the JK'avy Department. 

Isaac PliilKps, Captain, was appointed to the command of the U. S. sliip 
Baltimore, July 3d, 1798; accepted the appointment July 9th, 1795 — his 
Commission dated July 3d, 179S, was sent to him on the 9th July, 1798 — 
he not having received tliat Commission, a new one, of the same date, was 
delivered to liim January 9th, 17'J9. — He was dismissed from the service of 
the United States, Jamiary ]Oth, 1799, and, by the records of letters re- 
ceived, he returned his Commission to the Navy Department, February 
5th, 1799. 

I certify that tiie above Extract is in conformity to the entries made in 
Register A. of the Navy Department. 

JOHN BOYLE, C. N. Dep'mt. 

Navy Department, July 12th, 1821. 

The following record of my sailing instructions, de- 
serves to be seriously considered. I am first directed to 
proceed to Hampton Roads, and thence sail in coi^ipany 
with, and under the orders of captain Truxtun: a circum- 
stance I siiall have occasion hereafter to notice when I come 
to an examination of the report of the secretary of the na- 
vy upon my case. That porti n of my instructions, where 
1 am directed, among other things, "on no account to mo- 
lest the vessels of any nation, but France, cannot pass un- 
noticed. To enforce the observance of this instruction, a 
case is put; that, ^'should I even see an timerican vessel 
captured^ I am not to interfere,''^ but leave the affair to be 
settled by the two governments. 

Cruising Iiistmciio?is to Capt. Isaac Phillips, covmwnding V, S. ship Balti' 
more. 9th Jlngust, 1798. 

Navt Df.pahtment, 9th August, 1798. 

Sm — Presuming that your ship, the Baltimore, must be now ready for 
sea, it is necessary that I should instruct you as to your future destination, 
in the service of the United States. 

Immediately upon your receipt of this letter, or as soon after as possi- 
ble, you are to proceed with the ship under your command, to Hamptor* 
Roads, where I expect you -vill meet tcith the Frigate Constellation, Captain 
Thomas Truxtun, in company ivith whom, and under -whose orders you are to 
cruise. Should you not find him at that place, you are to proceed to sea 
in search of him, and there is little doubt you will fall in with him between 
the Capes of Virginia and Charleston, on which station he has been cruis- 
ing for some time. 

It is hardly necessary to remind you of the importance of discipline and 
good order on board of ships of war; and in our infant Navy particularly, 

E 



8i 

early attention should be given, to introduce them to as high a degree as- 
possible. Good examples on the part of the officers, will naturaily lead 
to these points with tlie men. 

You will receive herein, an Act of Congress, passed the 9ih day of July 
last, authorizing the capture of the armed vessels of the French Republic; 
also tbe mstructions of the President, founded on that act. The vessels of 
every other nation, are on vo account to be molested, and I -wish particularly to 
impress on your mind, that should yon even see an Jlvurican vessel, capttned 
by the armed slap of any nation at -war, ivith luhom tveare at peace, you cannot 
lawfully interfere to prevent the capture,- fur it is to be taken for granted, that 
such nation xvilt compensate Jor such capture, if it should prove to have been il- 
legally made. 

It is hig-lily proper that you should inculcate among your officers and 
crew, a high respect for the government to which they belong, and, on 
no account, permit them to follow the example of some unprincipled Amer- 
icans, who, to the dishonour of the name, have not unfrequently indulged 
themseives, in licentiously villifying their own government, and the best 
characters in it; to command respect from others, we must respect o\ir- 
selves. It is time we should establish a National Character, which ought 
to be a love of our country, and jealousy of its honor; and, amongst seamen 
pariicuiarly, a veneration for our Flag. 

When you join Capt. Truxtun, it is intended that you both proceed, 
without delay, to the Havana, there to take under convoy a number of 
American vessels, who are afraid to venture home unprotected, and are 
wail ing for your arrival. Despatch is necessary, and should you not have 
completed your full complement of men at Baltimore, I should suppose it 
might be ad well to proceed to Hampton Roads, with what you have, and 
obtain the rest at Norfolk. 

I sincerely wish you a successful cruise, and by the time you return on 
this coast, arrangements will be taken for your further employment. 

I have the honor, &c. 
BENJ. STODDERT. 

1 certify that the preceding is faithfully transcribed from the Records of 
the Navy Department. JOHN BOYLE, C. N. Dep'mt. 

Navy Department, July 12th, 1821. 

Captain Isaac Phillips. 

From these instructions, fellow citizens, wliat but tame 
submission could the government have expected from her 
navy? She could spread her hunting, but it would not be 
regarded. She could sail in comjjany with fleets of mer- 
cliantmen, but she could not afford them protection, though 
captured witliin reach of her guns. It is difficult to con- 
ceive how our )iavy could be more disgraced, tlian by bear- 
ing such instructions. With the arrogant spirit which at 



3d 

this time prevailed in the British navy, and wliich had be- 
come so, by repeated successes; with a feeling bordering 
upon contempt for the infant navy of Amei-ica, and a deep 
and settled hostility to our government, what more humi- 
liating situation could an American officer be placed in, 
than to be manacled by a set of instructions like theses with 
every thing about him to prove the character of his ship, 
and what is worse, feel himself responsible for indignities 
offered to his flag. 

How much more humiliating must have been my situa- 
tion, without a single document to prove the chai-acter I 
was obliged to sustain. Are there any thing in these in- 
structions capable of being misunderstood? Was there 
any thing left to my discretion? In regard to my conduct, 
if, my own ship should hap|ien to be attacked, I had no in- 
structions whatever. How then could I have misconstrued 
them in relation to this aifair? I was left to act as my 
judgment directed me. How then could I have misappre- 
hended my instructions, atid rendered myself an)pnable for 
not observing them? The residuary clause of this record 
of imbecility, while it inculcates cowardice by every word, 
yet lays the foundation for my dismissal from the service 
upon a false charge of '-^tame submission,''^ to the indignity 
offei-ed my flag. It is believed, there is not an officer in 
our Navy, at this day, who would consent to hold his com- 
mission, if compelled to yield observance to such instructions. 

The next document in order, is the following extract of 
aletterfrom Mr. Secretary Stoddert to Captain Thomas 
Truxtun. This letter appears of record too, and reiterates 
the same charges which are contained in my letter of dis- 
missal, with some new shades of coloring — and an addi- 
tional charge of having written letters advising the officers 
of the Baltimore to resign their commissions. These charges, 
so often repeated, although entirely of his own creation, 
shew a determination to make others believe them, if pos- 
sible, whether founded on fact or not. No mistaken zeal, 
no misconception, no degree of stupidity, could ever have 
led the Secretary into such an error, or have furnishe<| 



36 

him witli an apology for assertions, falsified by every state- 
ment of the transaction which had been made. 

Extract of a letter fum the Secretary of the J^'avtf to Captain Thomas Tnix- 

tiiTi, commanding the U. S. Frigate Conste'lation, dated Feb'rt/. 6, 1799. 

««Tlit- Biiitimore has been delayed by the resignation of officers in con- 
sequence of the dismission of Phillips, who was not dismissed because the 
Britlsii took his men, but because he was active in submission. He never 
shoud have descended so low as to call all hands, because he -mis ordered to do 
it by a Briiish Lieutenmit, on board oj his oiun ship. You have his narra- 
tive, and are capable of judging on this subject. The power of dismis- 
sion without trial, resides in the President;— but it is a power not to be 
exercised, except on extraordinary occasions. Phillips has lowered him- 
self more in my estimation, by causing, as I suppose he did, letters to be 
wrilttn fiom Baltimore, by the friends of the officers, urging them to re- 
sign." 

I certify that the above Extract is faithfully transcribed from the Re- 
cords of the Navy Department; and tliat it contains all of the letter to Cap- 
tain Truxtun which has relation to Captain Phillips. 

JOHN BOYLE, Clerk Navy Dep'mt. 

Navy Department, July 12th, 1821, 

To close the correspondence with Mr. Stoddcrt, the fol- 
lowing* letter from him to me, dated February the 20th, 
1799. and certified by the Navy Department, is a docii- 
men'' that dcst-rves considerable notice. It explains, for 
what causes, according to Mr. Stoddert*s account, I was 
dis hissed from the service. It is important in another 
point c^ v'ev/, aiso, for it shews that the very charges, on 
which he relies to justiry my dismissal, had no foundation 
whatever. 

Juetlcr to Captain Phillips relating to his conduct in permitting his men to be 
mustered by a British officer, &c. 

Naty DfcPARTMEJTT, 20th Feb'y. 1899, 

SiK—T have received your letter of the 11th, which I will lay before 
the »*res!d. nt in a few days, when he will have leisure to attend to the 
subject of it. 

In the mean time, I ihink it neces^^ary to observe, that you never de- 
ceived any If.tter or instruction from mc, as you state, "ro keep good tei-ms 
tvith Ike British, by ete-y act of conciliation. A friend of yours, in a letter 
to Col. Howard, has gone still further with this mistake, and calls such 
letters from me, private letters. It is indifferent to me for what use such 
thin^rs ?re intended. You -were instructed not to molest the vessels of any na- 
tion ivith xvhom ive were at peace,- not even to interpose to prevent the capture 



37 

nf our oxaii merchmit vessels bij the armed ships of any nation except the French, 
Such were, and such still are our laws: — we arm only against the armed 
vessels of France; — against the armed vessels of other powers, ours have 
no right to act, except to repel insult, or injury offered to themselves — 
It vjos your duty, therefore, ?iot to attempt to defend against the British ships 
of war, the vessels under your convoy. But it was not your duty to obey 
the order of the British Lieutenant, to hoist your signal to stop your convoy,- 
and by so doing assist to thro-zv these vessels into the po~.ver of the British ships. 

But for this undue obedience on your part, the vessels might have got 
into tlie Havana. Though you had no right to protect them, except 
against the French, it did not follow that it would be proper to aid their 
capture by the British. The Congress have not deemed it the interest of 
the United States to pr':hibit the public ships from convoying for the pur- 
pose of protection against the French vessels with contraband goods. — 
Our fag, then, is not evidence of the fairness of the trade of the vessels con- 
voyed — nor can we lawfully protect sucli vessels from the operation of the 
law of nations. I make this explanation as well for the gentlemen with 
whom you communicate, as yourself. As to your men, it would have been 
most satisfactory, if you had not parted with them, idthout striking your 
fag, and giving up your vessel also. But if j'ou had been only passive, the 
unprecedented situation to which you were exposed, would have been con- 
sidered a sufficient excuse: but unfortunately, you sufFered yourself to be 
made instrumental in assisting tlie outrage on the American Flag, by obeying 
the order of the British officer to call cdl hands, and in fttrnisfdng a list of 
their names. This, it was conceived, you never should have done, what- 
ever miglit have been the consequences of your refusal. 

I have thus stated the only two points, which I confess I could not, in 
forming my opinion to lay before the President, ^-rt over. As to your 
correspondence with Loring, that had no weight in influencing the mea- 
sure of which you complain . 

On the subject of the principal point of youi* defence, having no com- 
mission; T can neither confirm nor contradict the fact. It appears by a re- 
cord in the hand writing of the Clerk, whose duty it was to transmit com- 
missions, that yours was sent the 9th of July; this Clerk, Mr. Josiah Fox, 
left the office in October, and has not been in it since; his place of resi- 
dence is Norfolk. I must confess, however, that it appears not a little ex- 
traordinary, that with the impressions stated in your letter, on your mind, 
you should have gone to sea without a Commission, and without once 
complaining in any letter to me, of the want of one; and it is difficult to 
conceive what service, with such impressions, you expected to perform. 
It is extraordinary, too, that in vour narrative of the transaction with Lor- 
ing, this circumstance, which you now think so important, not only as it 
affected your conduct, but his also, should be so totally omitted: — espe- 
cially, too, as you must have supposed, that however little your own con- 
duct stood in need of vindication, that of Loring would probably lead to 
serious discussion between his country and your own; and under that 
supposition, it seems natural to conclude, that you would have felt it a 



38 

sacred duty, as it certainly was, to represent liis conduct just to your go- 
vernment, and to conceal no circumstance which might tend to mitigate 
its enormity. 

It aftbrds me no pleasure to have it in my power to make these very 
obvious remarks. I am, Sir, Sec. 

BENJ. STODDERT. 
Faithfully transcribed from the Records of the Navy Departrreiit. 

JOHN BOtLE, C.N. Dep't. 
Navy Dep'mt. July 12th, 1821. 
Cuptain Isaac Phillips. 

Comment upon this letter is scarcely necessary. Here 
I am again reminded of my instructions, and a.a;ain told 
that *Hl was not my duty to attempt to defend f'lp convoy un- 
der my protection against the Bntish ships nf wnr.''' And 
yet, eveyi here I am indirectly charged, with having stop- 
ped my convoy, and of throwing them into the power of 
the British ships, by being reminded of what was not my 
duty. This insinuation breathes the essence of malice it- 
self, for it was a well known fact, that by my precaution, 
all the convoy got safely into port, but three, which were 
detained for a short time, and were then released and ar- 
rived in port without having sustained any injury what- 
ever. With what justice or truth, then, could the Secreta- 
ry have intimated that I had thrown my convoy into the 
power of the British ships? 

How the people of this country will be pleased with the 
avowal here made, *'^thnt our Jlasc is not evidence of the 
fairness of the trade of the vessels convoyed,*^ remains to be 
seen. England, in the plenitude of her arrogance, when 
insisting upon her right of scai-ch, never demanded more, 
than is here conceded to her. And although I am not cen- 
sured for giving up my men, yet I am reminded that it 
would have been more satisfactory^ if 1 had struck my flag 
and given up my ship. If Hie Secretary had given my 
narrative, and the other evidence which he had before him, 
the careful perusal he mentions in his letter of dismissal, 
recorded in the Chronicle, he would have seen that I did 
the very thing he says would have been so satisfactory: 
that J did strike my flag and give up my shijh Surely then, 



39 

this could have furnisljed no cause for complaint; no 
ground for my dismissal from the service. Mr. Stoddcrt 
admits that my situation was imprecedentedf yet he again 
reiterates the unauthorized charge, ^*that I assisted the ouU 
rage upon the American Jlag^ by obeying the orders of the 
British officer^ to call all hands, and in giving him a list of 
their names.'''' These, Mr. Stoddert says, are the only two 
points he could not get over: assisting the British to capture 
my convoy, and submitting to the orders of the British 
oiiiccr, in calling all hands and in giving him a list of their 
names — coiisequently, every other part of my conduct was 
satisfactory, or at least, according to his notions, excusable. 
These, then, were the only two causes for which I was so 
unceremoniously dismissed. The first point he well knew 
was not true, for none of my convoy were captured. The 
second, he must have known was equally untrue, for I was 
not on board when the hands were called and the list of 
their names was put into the hands of the British officer. 
These things were done in my absence, by my first Lieu- 
tenant, who was Mr. Stoddcrt's kinsman, and who was 
alone responsible for these acts, if they were improper.-- 
But he was never censured, or called to account in any 
way, but after my dismissal, was ordered to the command 
of my ship. Mr. Stoddert must have known all these facts 
when he gave me my commission; when he wrote my let- 
ter of dismissal, the day after; when he wrote to Captain 
Truxtun, on the 6th of February, 1799; and when he pen- 
ned this letter to me, and that neither of the charges he 
has so frequently made were true. 

Mr. Stoddert strongly insinuates, in this letter, that I ne- 
ver had mentioned to him, that I had not received my com- 
mission, and thai he entertained some doubt upon the sub- 
ject, whether it was sent or not. For he says, it is ex- 
traordinary that I did not mention to him, I had not received 
my commission, and that in my narrative, no mention is 
made of it. This letter, it will be perceived, is dated in 
February, 1799, and will it be believed by any rational 
man, that Mr. Stoddert could have forgotten that on the 



40 

9th day of January, in the same year, not one month be- 
fore, that he had himself given me a new commission?— 
Would he have done this if he had not then known, that I 
had none before? And yet, he says that I did not mention 
to him, that I had not received my commission. If I did 
not, how came he by a knowledge of the fact? Either he 
must have remembered that he had neglected his duty; that 
I sailed witl)out it, or he must i)ave derived his knowledge 
of the fact from me. That he knew it was so, is evidenced 
by his giving me another. With what propriety; with 
what appearance of truth then, does he state in this letter, 
that I had not mentioned a circumstance to him, "u'Aic/i I 
deemed so important?''^ It is accounted for in one way — 
this letter, like the letter of dismissal published in the 
Chronicle, was prepared for the records of the department, 
rather than for a scrupulous statement of facts. It is pain- 
ful to criminate any man; but the greatest exercise of 
charity, cannot reconcile discrepencies, such as are wit- 
nessed throughout in the language and conduct, of this 
gentleman. 

Having thus far laid before you the facts of this case, I 
will now proceed, agreeably to my promise, to furnish the 
evidence in support of my assertion, that the letter of dis- 
missalf published in the JSTaval Chronicle, is a dijj'erent one 
from the letter I received from Mr. Stoddert. 

Certifcate of Capt. I. Phillips. 

I certify on the honor of a gentleman and officer, that 
the letter, as published in the Naval Chronicle, purport- 
ing to be my letter of dismissal from the Naval service of 
the United States, differs essentially from the one receiv- 
ed by me, from Benjamin Stoddert, Secretary of the Navy, 
that letter did not consist of more than three lines, on com- 
mon letter paper, and contained no censure on my conduct, 
nor was any i*eason assigned in it for my dismissal. 

And I do most positively deny the charges contained in 
Mr. Stoddcrt's letter to Capt. Truxtun, dated 6th Febru- 
ary, ir99, and numbered 4, or that I ever wrote any of 



41 

the letters which he supposes, in that letter, I did write. 
But, on the contrary, I urged the officers to remain in the 
service. 

To these declarations, I am ready to qualify at anytime 
and in any manner it may be deemed necessary. 

ISAAC PHILLIPS. 

The above I certify to be a true copy of the original, on 
file in this Department. 

CHARLES HAY, Chief Clerk. 

Navy Department, 3d June, 1825. 

City of Baltimore, ss: 

Be it remembered, That on this 17th day of September, 
1825, Captain I. Phillips personally appeared before me, 
the subscriber, one of the Justices of the Peace for said 
city, and made oath on the Holt Evangels of Almigh- 
ty God, that the enatters and things contained in the fore- 
going Certificate, are true, as therein set forth, to the best 
of his knowledge and belief. 

Sworn and subscribed before me, 

JOHN MOORE, Justice Peace. 

In confirmation of my statement, the affidavit of David 
Winchester, Esq. is also submitted. The high standing 
of Mr. Winchester^ his character for integrity and honor; 
the estimation in which he is held in society, render all 
comment upon his statement unnecessary. Wherever he 
is known, his testimony will carry conviction; and I haz- 
ard nothing in saying, that for truth and veracity, he 
does not suffer by a comparison with any man. 

Letters from D. Winchester, Esq. to Isaac Phillips, \3thJ\Tarch lS2i, relative 
to Mr. Stoddert's letter of dismissal- 

Baltimobe, 13th March, 182*. 
Captain Isaac Phillips — 

Dear Sir — I have received your letter of the 11th current, requesting 
me to state my recollection of the contents of Mr. Secretary Stoddert's 
letter, dismissinjr you from the Naval service of the U. States, in conse- 
quence of the affair with Commodore Loring, My recollection of the 
letter in question is, that it was very laconic, containing not more than nuo 
or three Hnes, and stating, in substanccj that the U. States had no further 

F 



42 

occasion for your services, -unthont assigning any reason ivhuiever. Ou read- 
ing the letter published in the Naval Chronicle, it immediately occurred 
tome, that it was not the same you had shewn me, at the time. 
I am, very respectfully, Dear Sir, 

Your mo't. ob't. serv't. 

D. WINCHESTER. 

Second Letter from David Winchester, Esq. respecting JMr. Stoddert's letter 
of distnissal, 30th June, 1824. 

Baltimoue, 30th June, 1824. 
Captain ISAAC PHILLIPS, 

Dear Sir — On more mature reflection, I am convinced, that the 
statement contained in my letter of the )3th March last, of the substance 
of Mr. Stoddert's letter dismissing' you from the Naval service of the Unit- 
ed States is correct. I do not pretend, after a lapse of more than twenty- 
five years, to quote from memory, the precise phraseology of the letter, 
but as regards its matter and manner, I feel great confidence that I am not 
mistaken. 

My acquaintance with, and respect for you, the interest I took in the 
administration of the general government at that period, whose populari- 
ty I feared might suffer by an act, that appeared to me to be arbitrary, 
were circumstiances calculated to fix in my memory the transaction. 
With great regard, I am, dear sir. 

Your most obedient servant, 

D. WINCHESTER. 
David Winchester, Esq. the writer of the foregoing letter, has been 
known by me for the last thirty-five years, and has ever been justly con- 
sidered as one of our most intelligent and respectable citizens, whose 
character for honor, truth, and integrity and high mindedness, is surpass- 
ed by no one. 

EDW'D. JOHNSON, Mayor of the City of Baltimore. 

City of Baltimore f ss: 

Be it Remembebei), That on this seventeenth day of September, 
1825, David Winchester, Et>q. personally appeared before me the sub- 
scriber, one of the Justices of the Peace for said city, and made oath on 
the Holt Evangels of Almighty God, that the matters and things stated 
in the foregoing letters of the 13th of M^rch, and 30th of June, 1824, are 
true to the best of his knowledge and belief. 

WM. CLEMM, Jus, Peace. 

Letter from Mrs, Elizabeth PMlIif)s, respecting Mr. Stoddert's letter of dis- 
missal, 27th July, ISH. 

Baltimore, 27th July, 1824. 
Captain Isaac Philltps — 

Dear Sir — Having understood that you intend to apply to the Presi- 
dent of the United States, for your rank in the Naval service, I beg leave 
to state a fact, which is now fresh in my memory, with regard to the letter 



43 

•of dismissal received by you, from Secretary Stoddert. Being, at the 
time, a resident in the house with you, and on terms of intimacy with your 
Lady, I was shewn the letter of Mr. Stoddert, and have a perfect recol- 
lection, tliat it was unusuiiUy laconic, not containing more than three lines 
on paper of similar size with this sheet, and that it assigiied no came for 
your dismissal, Jior did it contain any charge of 7nis^onduct, on your part. 

My reason for writing this letter is, because I ato satisfied that the let- 
ter, as publislied in the Naval Chronicle, purporting to be your letter of 
dismissal, difters essentially from that received by you in 119&^ and perus- 
ed by me, immediately after its receipt. — To the foregoing particulars, I 
am ready to quality, should they be of any service to you, whenever it 
may be required. 

Being confined to bed, with a fractured limb, I have procured a friend 
to write this letter. I am, with much respect, your friend, 

ELIZABETH PHILUPS. 

City of Baltimore^ ss: 

Beit remembered. That on this 17th day of September, 1825, Mrs. Eli- 
zabeth Phillips personally appeared before me, the subscriber, one of the 
Justices of the Peace for the said city, and made oath on the Holt Evan- 
gels OF Almightx God, that the matters and things contained in the fore- 
going Certificate, are true, to the best of her knowledge and belief. 
Sworn and subscribed before me, the day and vear af oi^said. 

JOHN MOORE. 

Connected with tliis branch of my subject, and to aid 
my application to the President, to be restored to my rank 
in the Navy, the following letters were politely handed to 
me. 

Letters from Robert Oliver^ and William Patterson, Esquires, to the President 
of the United States. 

Baltimore, 3d June, 1824. 
Sin — Captain I. Phillips, who will have the honor of presenting this let- 
ter to you, is under the impression, that he was not regularly dismissed 
from our Navy, and that he is still in the service. He will explain his 
view of this subject, and it is only necessary lor me to add, that he is a 
worthy man, and very much respected in this city. 
I am very respectfully, sir, 

Your most obedient servant, 

ROBERT OLIVER. 
In addition to the foregoing letter from my friend and neighbour Ro- 
bert Oliver, Esq'r. I beg leave to observe, that Mr. Oliver and myself 
were two of a committee appointed to purchase and fit out two sloops of 
war at Baltimore, in the year 1798, for the service of the United States, 
that we were instrumental in having Captain Phillips appointed to the 
command of one of the said vessels, believing that he was well qualified 



44 

for that situation. I know not on what grounds Captain Phillips was dis- 
missed from the public service, but 1 have known him ever since as a re- 
spectable citizen of Baltimore, and have transacted business with him al- 
most constantly and to a large amount, very much to my satisfliction. 

WM. PATTERSON. 
Baltimore, 4th June, ISU. 

Certij! cote from the Merchants of Charleston, S. C. 
We, the undersigned, resident Merchants in the City of Charleston, 
South Carolina, do hereby certify, that in the year 1798, an application 
was made for some of the vessels of war of the United States, to call off 
the Bar of this city, and to take such Merchant Vessels under convoy, as 
traded to Havana, in consequence of the numerous privateers, that cap- 
tured otir vessels, and property, under the flag, and pretended flag of the 
republic of France. 

That in consequence of such application, the Baltimore sloop of war, 
commanded by Isaac Phillips, Esquire, was sent into this port on the 20th 
day of October, 1798, who took a fleet of Merchantmen under convoy, 
and proceeded with them for the port of Havana, and we have not any hesi- 
tation in adding, that we believe Captain Phillips paid strict attention, 
and protected the said fleet, so far as his force permitted, 

A. T UMRQE.. SIMON MAG WOOD, 

THOMAS MORRIS, D. CROCKER, 

JOSEPH WINTHROP, JNO. ROBERTSON, 
JN. HASLETT, HENRY O. HAVRE, ■ 

THOMAS OGIER, W. TIMMONS. 

Charleston, South Carolina, June 10th, 1824. 

Letter from William Timmons to Captain Phillips. 

Charleston, June 18, 182"^. 
ISAAC PHILLIPS, Esq'r. 

Dear Sir — Your letter of 8th May, addressed to Lewis Trezevant 
and myself, has been duly received, with the papers which accompani- 
ed it. 

That gentleman has been dead many years; and of course the charge 
of a reply devolves upon me alone. And first, with regard to your not 
having received any communication from either of us after your dismis- 
sion from the Navy, I can for myself declare, that if I had conceived that 
any thing I could have said or done at the time, would have been of the 
remotest service, either in alleviating your feelings on the occasion, or 
serving your cause, I would most cheerfully have come forward. Your 
urbanity and attention to me personally, whilst I was on board the Balti- 
more, for the greater part of the passage, ;the brigNorfolk having proved 
leaky,) would have demanded this, in common gratitude. I could but 
have expressed, however, the regret which I felt, in common with your 
other friends, at the abrupt and informal manner of your dismissal, even 
without a hearing! This sentiment remains unabated to the present day— 



and happy Indeed shall I be at this late period, if any document, that I am 
able to procure, shall be useful in throwing light upon the subject, or 
shall contribute to place your conduct upon the foundation of its true 
merits. 

You will recollect, however, sir, that, I was not on board your ship when 
the offensive conduct on the pirt of Commodore Loring- took place. Mr. 
Trezevant and myself had previously gone on board the bng Norfolk for 
the greater convenience of landing, and when we returned to jour ship, 
w hich we did on the afternoon of the sime day that you fell in with the 
British squadron— (the brig Norfolk, Captain Butler, in which we were 
originally passengers, having been ordered for Jamaica by the command, 
ing officer) — the outrage had been committed, of course I could say 
nothing from my own observation, or personal knowledge. 1 am willing 
to attest, (and have always spoken of them in the high terms they deserv- 
ed) to the zeal, ability and officer-like conduct displayed by you during 
the passage, in affording protection to the merchant vessels under your 
convoy. 

The expression of my opinion as to the character of the affair, will pro- 
bably be of no service; and yet I cannot forbear saying, that judging from 
the information I obtained at the time I returned to the Baltinn^re, and 
upon which I placed the most firm reliance, I then thought, and do now 
think, that the conduct of Commodore Loring was marked by that decep- 
tion, artifice, and disingenuousness, which are infinitely beneath the char- 
acter of an officer and a gentleman. 

At the time you entered the cabin of the Carnatic, I understood that 

two American Captains were present, viz: Captain Baas of the , and 

Captain Fuller, of the brig Friendship — the first named-person is dead, 
but Captain Fuller survives — and he has made a statement, which j ou will 
receive with this, and which I trust may not be thought unimportant. — 
I have also procured from some respectable merchants of this city, who 
were in business at the time, and some of whom had property on board 
the fleet — a certificate, shewing your devotedness to the interes;s of our 
commerce. These are the only documents that I can think of at present, 
as being likely to be useful to you, or to throw light upon the narrative. 
Subjoined are a few remarks, which appear to me to be necessary to re- 
concile some apparent contradictions between the joint letter of Mr. 
Trezevant and myself, addressed to Mr. Morton, our then Consul at Ha- 
vana, and the narrative, as published in the Naval Chronicle, a copy of 
which is contained in the newspaper you sent me. All which is respect- 
fully submitted by, 

Dear, sir, with great respect and esteem. 

Your obedient humble servant, 

W. TIMMONS. 

Kemabks. — From the great length of time which has elapsed since the 
outrage was committed, it is not to be wondered at, that some errors have 
crept into the narrative, particularly when we recollect that Captain 
Phillips' memory has been unassisted by any written document. With re- 



46 

spect to the consultation which Captain P. had with Mr. Trezevant, tlm 
ivas held after the w^-ong had been done by the British Commodore,- upon 
Messrs. Trezevant and Timmons' return to the Baltimore; and the con 
sultation was had not on the conduct to be pursued in consequence of the 
Jirst procedure of Commodore I.oring, but in consequence ot" a note, which 
Captain P. subsequently received from him, demanding that all British 
seamen on board the Baltimore shouldbe delivered up to him — it was upon 
the contents of this note that Mr. Trezevant was consulted. Mr. i im- 
mons copied Captain Phillips' answer to this note, at his request. He 
cannot now remember the jiarticular contents — he recollects, however, 
that they were to tlie following efi'ect — "that he, Captain P. did not, nor 
"could not know any British seamen on board the Baltimore, the flag of 
*'the United States b< ing a sufficient protection to all on board; but that 
•'having already struck hi.i Jlag to a superior force, lie should make no op- 
•'position, but should not fail to represent the whole affair to his govern- 
«'ment in its true colors! !" — Upon receiving this answer the British squad- 
ron made sail and disappeared. W. T. 

Certificate of Captain Fuller, in relatioii to the occurrence off Havana, dated 

Charleston, 18</i June, 1 8 24. 

SOUTH CAROLINA— Crrr of Charleston. 

Before me, R. Heriot, Notary Public and Justice of the Quorum, resid- 
ing and practising in the City of Charleston aforesaid, personally came and 
appeared Captain Oliver Fuller, who being by me duly sworn upon the Ho- 
ly Evangelist of Almighty God, did depose and say — 

That he commanded the American brig Friendship, in the year 1798; 
one of the vessels which sailed from this port of Charleston, under convoy 
of the United States' Frigate Constitution, Nichoison, Esq. com- 
mander; and the Sloop of War Baltimore, commanded by Isaac Phillips, 
Esq. bound to Havana — That after being out some days, the Frigate Con- 
stitution, bore away to the N. E. leaving the fleet under the sole convoy 
of the Sloop Baltimore, 

That when they arrived off the port of Havana, they fell in with a Brit- 
ish squadron, under the command of Commodore Loring, by which some 
of the American merchantmen were cut off, and this deponent's brig a- 
mongst others. — That he, this deponent, was ordered on board the Com- 
modore's ship, (the CarnaticTt') with his papers. — That whilst he was in 
the cabin, with Commodore Loring, Captain Phillips came in, (having been 
invited, vs this deponent understood, on board the Carnatic. by Commo- 
dore Loring) when some desultory conversation took place, the particu- 
lars of whicli, this deponent does not now remember; but he does per- 
fectly recollect, that a person appeared at the door of the cabin, and men- 
tioned, loud enough for ti\is deponent to hear, "that the boats had return- 
ed." — Upon which, that Captain Phillips started up, with displeasure in 
his countenance and manner, took up his hat, and made his way to the 
deck. That in a short time, this deponent followed, and then observed 
boats along-sule the Carnatic, which he had afterwards good reason to be- 



47 

lieve, had just broujjht some of the crew of the Baltimore, to the said 
British ship, wliilst Captain Phifli/js ^vas in the cabin, ivith Commodore Lo- 
ring, as before stated, — That previousto this deponent's going upon deck, 
Captain Phillips had returned to his own ship, and addressed a note to 
Commodore Loring, which the said Commodore read to this deponent, 
in which Captain Phillips stated, in the stron',^est terms, his sense of the 
outrage that had been committed, charged the said Commodore Loring 
with duplicity, and deception, or words to that effect, and said, that he would 
represent the facts to his Government. 

That he, this deponent, viewed the transaction as a premeditated plan 
on the part of the said Commodore Loring, by first inviting Captain Phil- 
lips on board the Camatic, and, taking advantage of his absence from the Bal- 
timore, by authorizing an act, which, in this deponent's opinion, was de- 
rogatory to, and inconsistent with, the dignity of an officer. 

Lastly, this deponent declares, that he has, at various times, been under 
Convoy of Men of War, and that he never saw more zeal or attention 
paid to Merchant vessels, or better seamanship, than were displayed by 
Captain Phillips, on the passage aforesaid, from Charleston towards Ha- 
vana. OLIVER FULLER. 
In witness whereof, I, the said Notary Public, and Justice of the Quorum, 
^ux»j. have hereunto set my hand, and affixed my Notarial Seal, 
*" Pa^ ^^^^ ^^^'^ ^'^y of June, 1824, and in the forty-eighth year of 
*^2 American Independence. R. HERIOT, 

■^"^^^ ^'"^- ^''^- ^ ^- ^' 

Letter from John Cotvper, of JYorfolk, to Isaac Phillips. 

Norfolk," 25th July, 1824. 
Captain ISAAC PHILLIPS, 

Dear Sir — .\ short absence from home, has prevented an earlier atten- 
tion to your letter of the 6th instant, and I have been also disappointed in 
not finding some letters from tiie late Commodore Truxtun, on which I 
had made memoranda, of conversations with that officer, relative to your 
conduct when you commanded the United States sloop of war Baltimore, 
on account of which, it was understood you were deprived of your com- 
mand, it not dismissed the service. 

At the time of the occurrence alluded to, I was upon the most intimate 
and friendly footing with Commodore Truxtun; he spent much of his 
leisure time at my house, and our conversations were free and unreserved. 

I remember at a particular time, he had been reading a newspaper, in 
which you were treated with harshness and illiberality; the Commodore 
expressed much indignation at the illiberality and abuse of the press, 
upon this and other occasions. He observed that you were greatly in- 
jured and unjustly treated by public opinion, in relation to the circum- 
stance mentioned, and added, that under the circumstances in which you 
were placed, no officer could have acted with more general propriety, 
and further added confidentially, (what I had not before known,) that the 



blame lay on others, who he did not name, but who I understood; he then 
informed me, that you had been sent to sea on a cruise, without a com- 
missicn, conduct which he censured, (hough in respectful terms. 

I wculd not take upon me, after the great lapse of time which has oc- 
curred, to answer for the accuracy of every word I have stated, but for 
the general accuracy, I speak with confidence. 

1 well remember, that when you were the subject of conversation. Com- 
modore Truxtun spoke of your qualifications as an officer, in terms high- 
ly honorable to you. 

I know that there was not an officer in the service, more tenacious of 
whatever concerned the honor of his country's flag, than Commodore 
Truxtun. I do think he was the last, that would have vindicated, or 
found an excuse for submission to any indignity ottered to that flag. 
I am very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOHN COWPER. 

With such evidence as is here produced, on the 5th day 
of August, 1824, I made the following application, through 
the Secretary of the Navy to Mr. Monroe, then President 
of the United States. 

To the President of the United States — 

The memorial of the subscriber respectfully represents. 
That your memorialist was appointed a Captain in the 
Navy of the United States, on the 3rd day of July, 1798. 
That being ordered to the command of the Sloop of War 
Baltimore, he took charge of that ship, and when ready for 
sea, received orders from the Navy Department to pra- 
ceed in her to Hampton Roads, and place himself under the 
orders of Captain Thomas Truxtun. 

Tl;at owing to some unaccountable omission in transmit- 
ting his Commission which he had not received, your me- 
moriaUflt delayed sailing for two days, in order to commu- 
nicate the circumstance to the Secretary of the Navy — But 
your memorialist being informed of the perilous situation 
of a fleet of merchantmen, (vhich he, in company with 
Captain Truxtun, and under his orders, was directed to 
take under convoj from the Havana to the United States,) 
was reluctantly induced to accede to the very urgent solici- 
tations of the Committee at Baltimore, to proceed to Hamp- 



49 

ton Roads, under a promise that his Commission should be 
despatched after him, so soon as it should be received from 
the Navy Department. 

Tiiat in obedience to his orders, he proceeded to Hamp- 
ton Roads, joined Capt. Truxtun, and informed him of the 
predicament in which he stood. Captain Truxtun repre- 
senting; to him, that as he was to cruise in company with 
him, (Capt. T.) ilie character of his ship coidd not be 
questioned — And that, although it was a subject of regret 
that he was not in possession of his Commission, yet, by 
carefully avoiding a separation during the cruise, he ap^ 
prehended no bad consequences would follow. 

That your memorialist, influenced by Captain Truxtun, 
consented to sail, and accordingly did sail, in obedience to 
his cruising instructions, and on the return of your memo- 
rialist to the Coast of the United States, he was ordered by 
Captain Truxtun to cruise four days off the bar of Charles- 
ton harbour, and then rejoin him in Hampton Roads. 

That your memorialist repeated to Captain Truxtun his 
objections for the want of liis Commission, but was again 
over-ruled, and in accordance with his orders, he cruised 
off Ciiarlestoii, for the protection of the merchant service. 
Towards the close of ijis cruise, he was fallen in witii by 
the Frigate Constitution, Captain Nicholson, who first re- 
quested and subsequently (in consequence of strong objec- 
tions on the part of your memorialist) orderedyour memo- 
rialist to accompany liim on the same cruise. 

That Captain Nicholson having consented to take a fleet 
of merchant vessels undei" convoy, from Charleston to Ha- 
vana, he ordered your memorialist to proceed to Charles- 
ton, take in such supplies as his ship required, and join him 
in convoying the fleet to Havana, that he renewed his objec- 
tions, on the score of his Commission, but was compelled 
to submit to the orders of a superior officer. 

That, in consequence of a disaster which befel the bow- 
sprit of the Constitution, on the passage to Havana, her 
Commander bore away from the fleet, for a port in the 
G 



50 

tJnitcil States, leavins; your memorialist in the unprecedent- 
ed situation of being in command of a National Ship, in 
time n^ extreme peril, having under his sole convoy a valu- 
able fleet of merchantment, himself having no commission 
or any other sufficient document, to prove the national char- 
acter of his ship. 

Thus situated, had your memorialist been influenced by 
any other feeling than a devotion to what he considei'ed his 
duty, he probably would have left the fleet, and proceeded 
to Hampton Roads, in oberlience to the orders of Captain 
TruxtuM, but his sense of duty prevailing over, what might 
have been considered, a safer course of conduct, he contin- 
ued with the fleet, and protected it to the port of destina- 
tion, so far as his limited force permitted. 

Tliat when your memorialist arrived off" the port of Ha- 
vana, he fell in with a squadron of English Men of War, 
and an unfortunate occuri'ence took place, which, on his 
return, eventuated in liis dismissal from the service of the 
United States, by tiie then Secretary of the Navy; which 
dismissal your memorialist understantis and insists was un- 
just and illegal, and without the ktiowledge or concurrence 
of the President, and of which circumstance your memorial- 
ist, until vej"y lately, has heeji kept in ignorance. 

When your memorialist entered the Naval Service of the 
United States, and was ordered to take command of the 
Sloop of War Baltinmre, he was influenced by no pecunia- 
ry motive, but was appointed a Captain without any appli- 
cation of his own, and received and accepted the api)oint- 
ment, under the impression that his seivices would be use- 
ful to his ountry, and honourable to himself. 

Your memorialist humbly conceives that the evidence 
contained in the docuiiients and papers, numbered 1 to 12, 
which he has the honor to transmit Ijei-ewith, amjdy prove 
the injustice and illegality of his dismissal, without even a 
trial, or a Coui't of Enquiry, which was demanded and re- 
fused, and that he is, therefore, as he humbly conceives, 
still lawfully entitled to his rank in the Navy of the United 
States. 



51 

He therefore prays your Excellency to take his case in- 
to consideration, aiid to restore him to liis rank in the Na^ 
vy of the United States, and order him to he furnished with 
a new Commission, bearing date in conformity with his 
appointment, above stated. 

All which is respectfully submitted, by, 

Sir, your most obedient and 

very Iiumble Servant. 
Baltimore, 5th August, 1824. ISAAC PHILLIPS* 

To the Fresident of the United States. 

SIR— 

You will please, after examining my case, as published 
in the Naval Chronicle, do me the favor to put the follow- 
ing questions to Charles W. Goldsborougli, Esq. 

1st. Have you any recollection of having seen the narra- 
tive delivered by me to Mr. Secretary Stoddert, respecting 
the affair between tlie British Squadron, under Commodore 
Loring, and the U. S. Sloop of War the Baltimore, under 
my command? 

£nd. If you read that narrative, do you recollect my hav- 
ing urged that I had no commission prior to my sailing in 
the Baltimore— that I had no Commission at the time the 
aflair referred to took place ? 

3rd. Did I not, while in Philadelphia, say to the Secre- 
tary of the Navy, that if he or the President was not per- 
fectly satisfied with my conduct, as explained in the narra- 
tive I desired an opportunity of being heard by a Court, or, 
being there myself, was ready to give explanation that 
might be required ? 

4th. From the narrative, on whom did it appear that 
blame attached — was the officer really censurable, from the 
facts stated, dismissed, or in any way punished; and was 
not the same officer a relation to the Secretaryof the Navy? 
5th. Was not the command of the sloop Baltimore given 
to that officer, immediately after my dismissal from the Na- 
vy, by Mr. Stoddert? 

6th. Did you ever hear Commodore Truxtun speak of 



*» . '«»' 



9S 

my dismissal; and if so, what did he appear to think of it, 
and wiiat opinions did he express in relation to it? 

7th. What was my general character as an officer in the 
Navy, with those who knew me best ? 
1 have the honor to remain, 

With {^reat respect, 

Your ohed't serv't. 

ISAAC PHILLIPS. 
Washington, 9th April, 1825, 

Washington, 12th April, 1825. 
Sir — With respect to the queries whicU Ciipt. t'hilhps, in iiis letter to 
the President oftlie United »tates, of the 9th inst. has requested should 
be p: opounded to me, I have to make the following replies, from my best 
recolleciion, atier a lapse of so many years. 

1st. 1 have a vlistinct recoilection of having seen and read, repeatedly, 
the narrative delivered iiy Capl. Phillips to Mr. Secretary Stoddert, res- 
pecting- thi; -^tiair between tho United States Sloop of War the Baltimore, 
and a Brivish squadron under Commodore Loring. 

2nd. In that nr.rrati> e, Capt. Phillips urged, thathe had received no 
Commission prior to his sailing in ihi- Bakimore: that he had none at the 
time tiiC aii'air referred to tooii place. 

ord. While Capt. Phillips was in Philadelphia [Dec. 1798,] 1 frequent. 
ly heard him say, that if the Govern. nent was not satisfied as to his con- 
duct in the affair referred to, he desired an investigation by a Court — and I 
think it highly probable that Capt. Phillips said as much to tlie Secretary 
of the Navy. 

4th. To inij mind, it appeared from the narrative, that the first Lieuten- 
ant of the tiaitimore was m <re censurable than any other officer — he was 
not dismissed, nor was he in any way punished for his conduct, that I 
know of. In spc-a^ing of mii opinion on this point, I owe it to myself 
to express my consciousness " that 1 share largely in the infirmities 
which belong to all iuiman judgments. 

T\\f. first Lieutenant o'. the Baltimore, was, I understand, distantly re- 
lated to the Secretary of the Navy; but in answering this branch of the 
qutries, it is proper that I should say, that 1 am convinced that this rela- 
tionship had no influence whatever upon the conUuct of the Secretary of 
the Navy, on the occasion referred to. 

5th. .Vfter Capt. Phillips was dismissed, the first Lieutenant of the Bal- 
timor.v was placed in command of that Sloop, until he was relieved by an 
officer [Capt Cowpcr] holding a commission equal to such command. 

6th. 1 liave heard Commodore 'i'ruxtun speak of Capt Phillips' dismis- 
sal in terms uf grtat regret, and as, in his opinion, unmerited. He enter- 
tained a high opinion if Cnpt. Phillips' professional and personal merits. 
7th, Capt. Phillips' general character as an officer, was, I believe, m^ 



Ay^A 



53 

ly respectable. I have heard many who knew him well, speak of him as 
an officer of great merit. 

I have the honor to be, with great respect. 
Sir, your most obedient servant, 

CHARLES W. GOLDSBOUOUGIT. 
Honorable Samuel L. Southard, Secretary of the Navy. 

On the I9th of Jlpril, 1825, 1 addressed the following letter to 
the Honorable Samuel L. Southard, Esq. Secretary of the 
J\'avy, 

Baltimore, 19th April, 1835. 
Sir — When I parted with you on the I4th inst. at your 
office in Washington City, you were kind enough to say, 
that as soon as my papers were returned to you from the 
President of the United States, you would forward me an 
official copy of the answers from Mr. Goldsborough to the 
queries which were put to him by me, and at my request, 
submitted to the President of tlie United States. 

As soon as the President has made up his mind on 
my application you will do me the favor to communicate 
the same. 

I have the honor to be, with respect. 
Your most obedient servant, 
I. PHILLIPS. 
Hon. Samuel L. Southard, Sec'ry of the U. S. Navy. 

On the 4th of May, 1825, the Secretary of the J\''avy made 
the following communication, which was received indue 
course. 

Navy Depahtment, May 4th, 1825. 
Sir— The decision of the President of the United States is adverse to 
the prayer of your Memorial, dated the 5th August, Wih and [ transmit 
for your information a copy of the report made by the Secretary of the 
Navy upon the subject of said Memorial, together with a copy of the 
President's decision. 

I am, very respectful'y, 

Sir, your obt-dient servant, 

SAMUEL L. SOUTHAKD. 
Isaac Phillips, Esq. Baltimore. 



54 

To the President of the United States. 

Navy Depautment, December 3rd, 1824'. 

Sir In obc'lience to your direction, 1 Iv.tve examined the case oflsaac 

Phillips, formerly a Captain in the Navy of the United States, and huvethe 
honor to present to you the following statement of facts and opinions, as 
the result of the examination. 

Captain Phillips in his memorial states, in substance, that he was, with- 
out soltciiation on his part appointed a Captain in the Navy on the 3rd of 
July 1798, and ordered to the command of the Sloop of War Baltimore, 
and to join Captain Truxtun then at or near Norfolk, that he was reluc- 
tant to sail because he had not received, by some omission, as he suppo- 
sed, of the Department, his Commission; but the perilous situation of a 
fleet of valuable merchant vessels, which he was to aid in convoying- from 
Havana, to the United States, and the urgent solicitations of the Commit- 
tee at Baltimore, united to the fact, that he was to sail with, antl under 
the orders of Commodore Truxtun, induced him to proceed without his 
commission, and under a promise that when received from the Department, 
it should be sent after him.— That on joining Commodore Truxtun, he 
regretted his not having his commission, but advised him to proceed un- 
der his instructions. That he ws-nt to the West Indies, and on his return was 
reluctantly compelled by Captain Nicholson, to join him on a like cruise, 
that in consequence of a disaster to the Constitutiim Frigate, he was left 
by Captain Nicholson alone to convoy the fleet of Merchantmen, on their 
passage to Havana, at a time of extreme peril, and without commission or 
other public document to prove the national character of his ship, that 
a sense of duty prevailed over his unwillingness to remain in his unplea- 
sant situation, and he continued to protect, as far as his force would per- 
mit, the vessels to their ports of destination. That when he arrived off" 
Hav.ina, an unfortunate occurrence took place between him, and the com- 
mander of a British Squadron, which induced the Secretary of the Navy^ 
on his return to the United States, most unjustly to dismiss him from the 
service, — that his dismission was without trial, without a Court of Enqui- 
ry, and without the knowledge or approbation of the then President of the 
United States. That he is therefore, still entitled to his rank in the Na- 
vy, and he prays you, Sir, to give him a new commission of the same date 
as his original appointment. 

The importance of this request both to the Government, and himself, 
I»eq\ures th.it a full investigation of the facts be made, and such I have en- 
deavoured to make. 

It is very much to be regretted, that this investigation could not have 
been had before the lapse of so many years; and before most of the per- 
sons concerned in the transactions were dead; — Kut Captain Phillips states 
- that he wlis not informed until very lately, that the then President of the 
United States, h:(d not assented to, and commanded his dismission from 
the service, and therefore could not earlier make his i'pplication. 

It is a fijct that Captain Phillips was regularly nominated to the Senate 



55 

30th June, his nomination confirmed 3rd July 1798, as a Captain in the^ 
navy, and the Rcfjister of the Department shews that a commission was 
sent to him on the 9thof tiie same month. 

He accepted the appointment on the yth of July, and must therefore 
have received the letter informing him of his appointment, but he denies 
that he received his commission. To the want of it at the time he sailed, 
he attributes the transaction with Commodore Luring, which was the 
cause of his dismission. — Although I do not think that the merits of his 
claim rest, in any great degree on this point, yet for your satisfaction it is 
proper that it shoul;! be examined. 

I think it must be achnitted as a fact, that the commission, though sent» 
was not received by liirn, because, 1st. He affirms it; it is tlierefore rea- 
sonable and correct to beheve it, unless disproved. 2n(l. John Cowper 
of Norfolk, in a letter to Captain Phillips, informs him, that soon after the 
dismission, Capt. Truxtun told him, that the fact was so. 3rd. Upon the 
representations made by him, the Secretary seems to have been satisfied, 
and a duplicate of the commission was sent to him on the 9lh of January, 
1799. But although I admit, that he did not receive the commission be- 
fore he sailed, yet 1 do not ailmit the conclusion which he draws. If there 
was impropriety in his going to sea, without a commission, he was him- 
self culpable on that point, more than the Department. He received and 
accepted his appoiniment on the 9th of July. He remained in Baltimoi*e 
and at Norfolk, more than a month, during which time, not less than six 
communications, were written to him by the Department, most of them in 
answer to letters received from him, — yet during all this time, when al- 
most daily communications might have been made, when several were 
made, he never informetl the department, that his commission had not 
been received; — he acted toward the Department precisely, as if no such 
difficulty existed, he kept it in ignorance of the fact. If under such cir- 
cumstances, any evil has resulted to him, or to the service, the fault is 
chiefly, nay, entirely his own: — He was guilty of an omission, culpable in 
itself, and deserving pvmishmeht. 

But I am not satisfied that any evil did result, I do not esteem it impor- 
tant now, to enquire, how far Captain Phillips was guilty in his transactions 
-w-'ith Commodore Loring He was judged by his own statement, and 
seems to have been considered guilty of an improper submission, in per- 
mitting his men to be taken out of his ship, — to what extent he was crim- 
inal, it would not at this time, be very easy to determine, from the evi- 
dence furnished by him, or from the records of the Department. But 
he then relied, and now relies, principally for his defence, on the fact, 
that his situation was unprecedented and difficult, because he h.ad not his 
commission with him. Was this in any degree an excuse? I think clearly 
not — no question was in reality made about his commission. He 
was not asked for it. Commodore Loring had much the strongest force, 
and usage, and courtesy, required him first to shew his commission, if he 
wished to see that of Captain Phillips'. He did not shew his own commis- 
sion, and demand in return to see Captain Phillips's, without doing which. 



56 

he had no rig'ht to see it, and Captain rtiillips would have been criminal, 
and deserved expukion fVom the Xavv, if he had shewn it. His cliarac- 
ter, or that of his vessel was not questioned in anyway. — If he had had 
his commission, there was no possible reason why he should have shewn 
it 

In reality then no evil did occur from his not having it; — Nor could any 
evil possibly have occurred, so far as I can perceive; — Captain Phillips 
was an American, all his Officers were Americans, he was on board a Ship 
of 20 guns, bearin.^ every mark of its national character. Every Officer 
and everv sailor, was a testimonial not to be misunderstood by any one. 
Had he met a French vessel, and his character been as'ied, it would have 
been his duty to render an answer very different, from the exhibition of 
his commission— meeting an English vessel, the circumstances which are 
before mentioned, would naturally prevent all enquiry, but should enqui- 
ry have been made, and the commission of the vessel, mating the enqui- 
ry, been shewn, Captain Phillips had, or ouglit to have had, in his pos- 
session, more than enough to furnish a ccmclusive reply. He had from 
the proper Department of the Ciovernment, a letter giving him the ap- 
pointment of Captain, and assigning him to the command of the vessel. 
Which carried i^ gt'T", * letter of itself, all that any foreign Officer, would 
have had a right to demand. He had also four other letters of the 17th and 
2lst July, and Gth August, from the same authority, directing him in the 
enlistment of his men, and the preparation of his vessel. He had his let- 
ter of Instructicms of the 9th August for the direction of his cruise; and it 
enclosed the Act of the Congress of the United States, authorizing the 
capture of the" armed vessels of the French Republic, and the Instruc- 
tions of the President, founded upon that Act. He had further, a letter 
of the 10th August, enclosing lists of the Signals furnished by Admiral 
Vandivert, by which British and American vessels might know each 
other at sea, and which had been agreed to, on our part. With these doc- 
uments in his possession, who would have ventured to deny his national 
character, and acted on the denial? And what Government would have 
sustained an Officer who had dared to do iti" Surely not the British, — 
Surely no one. I shall' be pardoned the suggestion then that, under 
such circimistances, the apprehensions which Captain Phillips i:rges, as 
an excuse for his conduct, were entirely without foundation, and must 
have resulted from very incorrect notions of his situation, character and 
duties. 

After the reiurn of Captain Phillips to the United States, viz. on the 
10th of January, 1799, the then Secretary of the Navy wrote a letter to 
him, dismissing him from the service — In February following, he return 
ed his Commission to the Department; — so far as can now be discovered 
there was but one letter sent to him, and one received from him, subse. 
quent to his dismission -They both relate to the reasons for the Act — 
And that of the Secretary referring to his own statement of the transac- 
tion. Imputes to him gross misconduct in submitting to the orders of the 
British Lieutenant, who was sent on board his ship by Commodore Lor- 



57 

ing; but that statement cannot now be found, having- probably been lost 
in the destruction of the Public Offices, some ) ears since. Nor does it 
seem to be of material importance, in determining whether Captain Phil- 
lips ought to be restored, however he might find it useful to his charac- 
ter in other respects. 

Ujjon this dismission, which, if legal, excluded him from the service, and 
leaves him without clami to relief, he raises three objections, ist. That 
it was improper, because he hud no Commission. If the view I have pre- 
sented Oil this point be correct, there is no validity in this objection. 2di 
That the letter dismissing him, was altogether different from that which 
is on the records of the Department, and hence lie infers,! presume, that 
the transaction bears marks of corruption, and ought not to be sustained; 
and that if this letter which assigns the reasons for the Act, had been re- 
ceived at the time, he should have been able to disprove the reasons and 
relieve himself from the punishment. I am not satisfied that he is correct, 
either in the fact or in the conclusion that he draws from it. 1. As to the 
fact, ^what letter was sent to and received by him, he asserts on the honor 
of a Gentleman and Officer, and proffers himself ready to testify, that the 
letter received was very short, of not more than three lines, and contain- 
ed no censure on his conduct, nor assigned any reason for his dismission 
And he furnishes two statements, one by David Winchester, Esq and the 
otiierby Mrs. Elizabeth Phillips, (both, 1 believe, very respectable and in- 
telligent,) in which they declare they saw the letter, and confirm his de- 
claration respecting its' length and contents — I have no hesitation in at- 
tributmg the utmost sincerity of belief and purity of motives to all these 
statements, but, with the evidence before me, I am not able to rely very 
confidently on their accuracy. They relate to a transaction almost a quar- 
ter of a century ago, and concern a matter, the length and contents of 
a letter, about which the human memory miglit very readily err, and the 
case affords strong reason to believe that it does err. 

In the first place, it is very improbable that an Officer, who had beert 
appointed but seven months before, and in whom the Secretar had more 
than once expressed his confidence, should have been dismissed, without 
assigning any cause, at a time too when his services we s needed, for the 
Government was imderthe necessity of sending out the Vessel immediate- 
ly, and before an Officer could be procured, of proper rank, to command 
it. 

2. On the same day on which this letter was written, one was addressed 
to Lieutenant Speake, who was by his removal, left in command of the 
Vessel, and is recorded with it; and in this letter a reason for the dismis- 
sion is assigned; is it at all probable, that the Secretary would have given 
his reason to the Lieutenant, and withheld it from the Captain himself? 
. 3. Had the letter contained no reasons, would they not have been ask- 
ed.' No such enquiry can be found, but so far as the contents of the let- 
ter then received from Captain Phillips can be known from the answer to 
it, of the 20th February 1799, it contained a statement refuting the alle- 

H 



58 

gallon of misconduct in the affair of Captain Loring. Why refute a charge 
not made? Why deny the existence of a particular reason for the Act, 
when neither tliat, nor any other reason, had been assigned. 

4. In a letter of the 6th of February 1799, to Captain Truxtun, the Se- 
cretary assigns the moiive for his dismission. U'hy as?ign it to him, and 
not to the man dismissed? 

5. The letter of the Secretary of the 20th February 1799, is manifestly 
designed to support, by argument, the reasons given in the previous let. 
ter, ami it states that those reasons had been submitted to the President. 

6. 13ut the argument which is more conclusive, and which I confess, is 
to my mind, incomparably more strong than the recollection of any three 
persons, at such a diitance, and on such a point, is, that there is no such 
letter on record as they say was received: but there is a letter recorded 
at that time, and oi that date, a copy of which is furnished to you, and 
which does assign, most distinctly, as the reason, founded on his own nar- 
rative, his tame submission and descending so far as to obey the orders of 
the British Lieutenant to have all hands called, and give him a list of their 
names." Whether this reason be true or false, it matters not, as to the 
point now under consideration. The letter is recorded. If it were not 
written or sent, the record has been falsely made, and it must have been 
so made, deliberality and knowingly. 

lam not prepared, on the opposing evidence, which is furnished, to cast 
upon the memory of the then Secretary of the Navy, an imputation sose-- 
rious. He is not here to answer; but the fame he has left behind him, 
is greatly elevated beyond the suspicion of sucli an Act. But even were 1 
it admitted, that the letter on record is not the one sent, I do not perceive 
how it is to avail Captain Phillips in the object of his petition. He did 
receive a letter dismissing him— he left the service in consequence of it — 
his Commission was actiially taken from him, and it is impossible that he 
GOu!<l have been ignorant of the cause of his disinis>ion, whether the letter 
assigned it or not. Suppose the reason be not in the letter, what evil has 
he sutfered by it ? — None that I can perceive. He alleges, however, that 
this letter was written without the authority of the President, and with- 
out his knowledge, and therefore illegal and void — And he offers in sup- 
port of this allegation, the impression now upon the mind of the then Pres- 
ident, that he did not order him to be dismissed, or consent to it, because 
he has no recollection of it. Mr. Adams does not seem to have expressed 
himself with entire confidence on this point, although his impression is 
very strong. I am perfectly aware of the uncommon retentiveness of Mr. 
Adams' memory, and vigor of his intellect, at this late period of his life. — 
I have lately seen and conversed with him, and to me, he seemed the most 
extraordinary instance of both, that I have ever witnessed, at an age so ad- 
vanced, and with a body so enfeebled. But I am convinced that his mem- 
ory fails him in this instance. It cannot be that Mr. Stoddert, on his own 
responsibility, and without consulting the President, performed so high 
and painful en exercise of power. It cannot be, that after having perform- 
ed an act of this character, he should, four times, and perhaps oftener* 



59 

have deliberately published, and then recorded a falsehood respectirg it; 
as he mast have done in his k-tters of the 10th of January, and 20th of Feb- 
ruary, 1799, to Captain IMiiliips; his letter of the Cth of Februaiy, to Cap- 
tain Truxton, and of the 10th of January to Lieutenant Speake. In the 
first of which, he says he is "commanded by the President to ii.form Cap- 
tain Phillips; that his services are no longer required." In the second, he 
states the points he "could not get over, in forming his opinion to lay be- 
fore the President;" and in the two latter, he alludes to and justifies the ex- 
ercise of the power in the President. It cannot be that detection should 
not immediately have followed such a d'.partare from every thing legal 
and honorable, for Captain Phillips had zealous friends, and has them still. 
The Act was, with him, the subject of enquiry; with others, of conversa- 
tion; and the Journals of the day contained not only statements of the fact, 
but long and harsh comments connected with it. If all these sources of 
detection e. caped the notice of the Executive, it is the most wonderful of 
all the incidents connected with this singular sfiair. I am compelled, 
therefore, to believe. Sir, that the power was exercised by the Executive 
as it is recorded, and that his memory, at this late day, fails to retain any 
part of the transaction. Captain Phillips was dismissed, I have no doubt 
by competent and legal authority. VVhetherthat authority was wisely and 
corre-ctly exercised, it is not easy to determine, after a quarter of a Centu- 
ry, and after the death of most of those conversant with the facts, and af- 
ter the loss of a part of the documents relating to it. But, even with the 
evidence as it is, I should hesitate before I disapproved it. 

But, Sir, Captain Phillips is entirely without claim to restoration, even 
if all his facts and arguments be sound. On the 3rd March, 1801, an Act 
was passed by Congress, "providing for a Naval Peace Establishment, and 
for other purposes," the 3d section of which, provides that the President 
of the United States retain in the Navy service, in time of peace, 9 Cap- 
tains, 36 Lieutenants, &c. &c. and he is authorised to discharge all the 
other officers. That Act was shortly afterwards executed.. There were, 
at the time, 28 Captains in the Navy, all in the full exercise and enjoy- 
ment of their commissions. The prescribed number was retained; the 
rest, whatever claims they had on public confidence, or on public grati- 
tude, were obliged to become private citizens. No one who was not re- . 
tained, could be a Captain in the United States' Naval service. Captain 
Phillips was not one of the number; and whatever, therefore, may have 
been his previous situation, his subsequent is irreversibly defined by the 
oper.ation of this law. 

I might. Sir, present to you, the unjust effect which would be produced 
upon all the officers now in service, by placing Captain Phillips at their 
head, after 25 years of absence from their Corps, and after they have 
hewnjtheirjway to their honors and to the affections of the country, through 
the late war, but it is not necessary. There can be no clearer conclu- 
sion, than that he has no right to be gratified in his petition, it is there- 
fore useless, to discuss the expediency of granting his prayer. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient Servant, 

SAMUEL L. SOUTHARD. 



60 

F. S. After I had written the foregoing report, and was about to pre- 
sent it, I received a letter of Capt. Pliillips addressed to you, in which lie 
requests Ihat you would call upon C. W. Goldsborough, Esq. who was a 
Cierk in the Navy Department, in 1798, to state what he knows of the 
transaction I sent a copy of his letter to Mr. Goldsborough and have 
received the answer which is now enclosed. You will perceive that it 
furnishes no new evidence, nor does it change in any rsspect that \ iew of 
i\\e case which I have taken. 

Decision of the President of the United States. 

WAsai>'GTO.'T, 3rd May, 1825. 

I have considered the Memorial of Isaac Phillips, dated Baltimore, 5th 
August, IB'ii, addressed to the late President of the United States, pray- 
ing to be restored to his rank in the Navy of the United States, and to be 
furnished with a new commisjion bearing date in conformity with his ap- 
pointment, on the 3d day of July, 1798. 

1 have also examined all the docments exhibited by him in support 
of his said memorial, and have considered the report of the Secretary of 
the Navy of the late President of the United States; dated 3d of December, 
with the Postscript to the same. 

From these papers it appears to me beyond all reasonable doubt that 
the memorialist v/as on the lOth of January 1799, dismissed from the Na- 
val service of the United States, by order of the then President of the Unit- 
ed States; and under these circumstances, I consider the legal authority 
of the President of the United States, not competent to grant the prayer 
of his memorial. 

The Secretary of the Navy will cause a copy of his report, and of this 
(lecision to be furnished to Mr. Phillips. 

("Signed,") J. Q. ADAMS. 

To t!ie Report of Mr. Southard, Secretary of the Na- 
vy, and the decision of the President of the United 
States, founded upon it, I will now devote that attention, 
which, from their importance, and their high origin, they 
respectively demand. No man entertains a higher opinion 
of the constituted authorities of his country than I do. No 
man feels a more profound respect for the splendid talents, 
stern integrity, and extensive information of The President^ 
or more properly estimates the worth and character of the 
Secretaiy of the Navy, than myself. High and imposing 
£^s is the authority of this Report, yet its character is not 
so exalted, as to deter a freeman in defence of his rights, 
an olfirerin the vindiration of his iionor. lit an effort to res- 
cue his character from re])roach, and obtain redress for 



Gl 

xjnnuM'itcd injury, to shrink from the task of givini^ this 
doi iimont a tiioroiigh examination. I shall endeavor to do 
tliis witli candor, but rertaiidy with freedom. I sliali do 
this with due respertbotli for its author, and the high station 
he holds in the government, and for the matter which the 
Report contains. I am no Diplomatist, and cannot, thei-e- 
fore, he exjjected to use much circumlocution or finesse, in 
disposing of a plain nsatter of fact. [ am no Courtier, and 
have hut little time or patience to exhaust in unmeaning 
co!j5i>liments, or idle declamation. 1 do not come before 
the public as a kind of Charity suitor, to beg favors; but 
as an injured man, to demand my rights, and justice for 
my wrongs. I do not ask this in violation of law, but in 
consonance with its soundest provisions. I demand a hear- 
ing of my case, and when that is had, if it shall then be 
found that I have no legal or equitable claim to redress, I 
shall be satisfied: fori do not seek it upon anj other terms. 
Why this laboured report should ever have been made, 
I confess myself at a loss to determine. Mr, Southard 
has, indeed, prefaced the rejjort, by saying, that "in obe- 
dience to directions I have examined the case oj Isaac PhiU 
lipsi''' and from this it seems, he has not only given, what 
he calls a statement of/acts, which evidently was the amount 
of the direction; but he has gone further, and supplied us 
with a liberal catalogue of opinions. This was certainly, 
no part of his official duty. Why he should have tender- 
ed this voluntary aid to the President, in coming to a 
decision of my case, remains, yet. to be ascertained. As 
a public officer, he cannot he supposed to have any per- 
sonal feeling upon this subject, and yet tise very partial 
viev^' he has taken of it, the manner in which his opinions 
are formed and expressed, seem to justify such an infer- 
ence. My case presents an important question, in which 
the whole nation, the government, the navy, as well as 
myself, are deeply interested. Its determination, there- 
fore, should rest upon a fair and impartial examination of 
the evidence; upon a candid exposition of the facts; a clear 
understanding of the law, and a rigid adherence to jus- 



tice. This will render it a valuable precedent, entitled to 
the higliest respect of the nation, should a similar case 
ever occur a.^ain. Its merit should not be frittered away, 
by petty considerations of policy or convenietice; nor should 
its justice be obscured by sopliistry, or denied through fear 
or favor. The decision, in this ( ase, will establish an im- 
portant principle, and in a national point of view, it sIkjuM 
be decided as justice demands, and the law prescribes, 
without any deep or feeling consideration for the conve- 
nience of myself, or of others. 

After givinar, what the secretary calls, a statement of 
facts, he remarks: that on the 9th of July, 1798, 1 accept- 
ed my appointment, and must, therefore, have received the 
letter informing me of it; and by which, he pretty strong- 
ly insinuates, that I received my commission also, in as 
much, as there is an entry on the register of the depait- 
ment, that it was sent. With considerable reluctance, how- 
ever, he admits, that I did not receive my commission; but 
at the same time, he thinks the merit of my case, does not 
rest, in any great degree, upon this point. With equal re- 
luctance too, be admits, that Mr. Stoddert was finally sa- 
tisfied of that fact, as on the 9th of January, 1799, he 
sent me a duplicate. He should have recollected also, that 
the record, of the navy department, contains Mr. Stod- 
dert's letter to me, in which, nearly one month after he 
had himself given me this duplicate commission, he states, 
that J never had informed him, that I had not received mij 
commission^ to which I was first entitled. If he had re- 
collected this, which is one of the facts in my case, that 
ought to have been embraced in this statement, he would 
not, perhaps, have been so unjust, as to have insinuated, 
that Mr. Stoddert gave me a duplicate, rather upon the 
strength of my statement, than from a conviction, that the 
first commission had not been sent to me on the 9th of Jan- 
uary, as mentioned in the records of the department. With 
whatever feelings the secretai'v framed this report, he evi- 
dently seized upon every circumstance, however trivial, to 
draw an inference unfavourable to my petition, while al- 



63 

most every fact in my favor, is either neglected, forgotten, 
or totally disregarded. And although he, at length, admits 
that I did not receive my Commission, before I went to sea; 
yet he says, if there was impropriety in my going to sea 
witliout it, I was more culpable^ on that pohtt, than the De- 
partment. I cannot supj)()se Mr. Southard made this dec- 
lai'ation, with any reference to the manner^ in which the 
business of the Navy Department, is now conducted: and 
yet, it is difficult, even when aided by hisf reasoning, to jus- 
tify tiie remark. He says, I remained in Baltimore and 
Norfolk, nearly one month after my appointment; that not 
less titan six communications were written to me, during 
that time, mostly in answers to letters received from me, and 
yet, I never informed the department, that I had not re- 
ceived my Commission, and that I kept it in ignorance ^of 
the fact. This is indeed, wonderful ! An officer who has 
been one xvliole month appointed, because he does not daily 
teaze thedej)artment for his Commission, like a child, who 
anticipates great deliglit from the possession of some pretty 
toy, is therefore charged with having kept that department 
in utter ignorajice of its duty, both to him and the nation. 
Was the department to be reminded by me, that I had not 
received my Commission, before it became necessary that 
I should have it? It would have been an insult to the Sec- 
retary to have made the application, for it would have im- 
plied a doubt, that he might not perform his duty. It was 
tlie business of the department to send it, and I had no reason 
to presume, but it would come in time. When it became 
necessary for me to have it, before I sailed, I did apply 
for it. 

But is it the custom of the Department to send an Ap- 
pointment, a Commission, or an Order to an Officer, with- 
out requiring him to acknowledge its receipt? It is not so 
in other nations, and it once was not the case here. I trust 
it is not the case now. A contrary practice would be too 
loose for that order and regularity, that ought to govern 
affairs of such moment, and would be subject to the worst 



64 

results. If it was a custom, to require tlie receipt of com- 
munications of this character, to be duly arknowledj^ed, 
the Dc])artment must have my letter to that effect, upon re- 
cord, if my Commission was evcrsejit aiul received by ine. 
There is a record of my letter, acknowledging the receipt 
of iny aj)pointment, and if no letter, acknowledgitigthe re- 
ceipt of my Commission was received, that, of itself, was 
information sufficient, that it had not reached me. It was 
strong presumptive evidence, that my Commission was mis- 
can ied, if it was realhj sent, and it was the duty of the De- 
partment to have enquired, and have ascertained the fact. 
That this is a necessary custom, no one, it is believed, can 
doubt. Unless the business of the Department is either 
much neglected, or very loosely conducted, it is indispensi- 
blc. Else it would be easy to shift the responsibility of 
the Department, upon the Officers of the Navy, and make 
them answerable for the negligence of every clerk and 
runner in it. Suppose an order, assigning to an Officer 
the speedy execution of some important duty, be directed, 
by the Secretary, to be forthwith sent. Some clerk, pro- 
bably, notes the ordo.r upon the record. But the order, 
through the negligence of some subordinate ageiit, is not 
sent — consequently, the duty specified in it, is not perform- 
ed. But, says the Secretary, that the order was sent, is 
evident, for it is noted upon the record. That it was not 
obeyed, is also evident; and the Officer has been guilty of 
disobedience ot orders and neglect of duty, and shali be dis- 
missed the service. Such cases might daily occur, and in- 
A^olve the same consequences, if it was not requisite to re- 
quire an acknowledgment, of ail communications, from the 
j)erson who receive them; and the want of sucli ai know- 
ledgment, is, at least, as strong and conclusive evidence, 
that such communication 7vas not received, as the note upon 
the record is, tlui.t it rcas ever sent. 

It is necessary that the Department should be correctly 
informed, at all times, that every order or communication, 
that issues from it, reaches its destination in due time, that 
the officers to whom they are directed, and who are charg- 



65 

ed with their execution, should be made accountable for 
tlieir strict observance. Hence, an acknowledgment fi*oin 
the Officer, to whom any such communication is direct- 
ed, is proof of the first importance, and of the liigbest char- 
acter. It is proof tlie Department always should possess 
and are accustomed to demand. It is their duty to require 
it. If the receipt of a communication is not duly acknow- 
ledi^ed, it is to be presumed it has miscarried, or been lost 
and the Department are bound to ascertain tiie fact. It is 
not entitled to be informed, from an officer, that an order 
or communication has not reached bim, hut it is tlie duty of 
tbe Departmeut to enquire of hiuu if he has received it. 
An officer cannot be expected to anticipate his communica- 
tions, nor often to be indirectly informed, that any are to 
be sent. The case of an appointment, it is true, is an ex- 
ception to the general rule, but should form none in the 
common practice of the department. An officer, certainly 
has reason to expect, that his Commission will follow his 
appointment; but comnjon delicacy, respect f )r himsolf and 
the Government, would induce him to suppose, that it would 
be sent, when the Department should consider it necessa- 
ry. The Department knew the purpose for which I was 
appointed, the duty that was about to he required of me, 
and the necessity and importance of my Commission, quite 
as well as I did, and had a right to determine the time and 
manner of sending it to me. I had no riglit to prescribe 
rules, or dictate to the Depai'tment, in what manner, or at 
what time, it should perform its duty. The neglect of send- 
ing the Commission, therefore, was not mine, as Mr. South- 
ard asserts, but, exclusively, that of the Department. I 
believe I may venture to assert, that the practice I have 
here contended for, is common with every well regulated 
government: and I should be sorry to understand, that 
ours is more negligent. If I am correct in tliese positions, 
Mr. Southard's opinion, upon tbis point, is unsotmd, and 
what it ought not to have been, even if it had been required 
of him. His reasoning upon it, is unfair and sopliistical, 
and his conclusion, that I was deserving of pnniskmciitfhe- 



6Q. 

cause T omitted, literally, to beg for my pai-chmcvit, is un- 
goniTOMS aiul iinraiulid. 

Ml*. Southard is not satisfied, however, that any evil f/icZ 
result, frofii in)' going to sea without my Commission. Nor 
docs he deem it important, now to enquire, how far I was 
guilty, in the aHTair v.ith Commodore Loring. Let it be 
remembered, that he is making a report upon my conduct, 
in t!iat very affair. I presume, he would like to have credit for 
having made one, entitled to respect for its legal accuracy, 
and strict impartiality. He, no dou.bt, expected, and cer- 
tainly intended, that this Report should have all the influ- 
ence in lits power to give it, in tlie decision of my case, or he 
never would have made it. He would have contented him- 
self with doing his duty; by laying a plain, unvarnished 
tale of farts, before the President, embodying all the testi- 
mony in the case, u\wnbofh sides. Let it be remembered, 
also, that I claim my riglit to my rank, upon the ground, 
that I was not guiltij at all, in that affair; and that I had 
not been legally dismissed from the service, and was, there- 
fore, entitled to be restored. I produced evidence, to pi-ove 
my entire innocence of all the chargts, tliat had been al- 
leged against me. My guilt or innocence, therefore, was 
an important feature in my case; and conution candor should 
have induced the Secretary, while \\q. pretended to i:;i\'e a. 
statement of facts, to have given the whole case. But he 
has not done this. He has passed over every fact, that 
seemed to operate in my favor, either in silence, or with a 
kind u{ sneer, as though it was of no importance to notice 
them. So long as it v, as his object to report against me, 
he tiiought it inexpedient, Isuppose, to exhibit both sides of 
the picture; hence, it was in some degree necessary, for 
the sake of consistency, to seize upon every pretext to jus- 
tify such a course. If it was not so, why should Mr. South- 
ard say, that I had beeii judged by my own statement, 
and been considered guilty of improper submission, in per- 
mitting my men to be taken out of my ship. Where is the 
fact, in my statement, to justify such a charge ? On what 
authority does he repeat it ? Not on tiie authority of the 



<S7 

iilatemciu, but of BcnjaKiin Stoddeit. Where is the mas^ 
of testimony that I liavc piodiicoO, to prove there was no 
foundation for such a chaige ? Has Mr. Souihard forgot- 
ten it? Or has he not read it? It was among tlie papers be- 
fore him, from wliich he framed this report; and yet he has 
not noticed it. I say, I have not been judged by my 
statement, as Mr. Soutiiard alleges; if I had, I must have 
been exonei'ated from all blame: for my statement will shew, 
that no such charge can be drawn from it. Is Mr. Southard 
to be credited, then, for making ati impartial report, of all 
the evidence in this case; when, by his own sliowing, he 
seizes upon the naked declarations of Mr. Stoddert, and 
relies entirely upon them; while he keeps out of view, and 
totally disregards, all the rest of the testimony ? He seems 
not to have been conscious, of the existence of a single fact 
in this transaction, but those which serve to sustain liinij 
in tlie course which he has thought proper to pursue 
against me. I should have expected from Mr. Southard's 
candor, at least, that if he attempted to make a report at 
all, it would have embraced the whole case; the evidence 
in my favoi', as well as that against me. But is this such 
a report ? From w hat authority docs he allege, that I was 
guilty oUame submission, in permitti)ig my men to be ta- 
ken; when even Mr. Stoddert declares, that this was not 
the subject of complaint: but tijat it was for throwing my 
convoy into the power of the British sliips, and obeying 
the orders of the British Officer, in calling all hands, and 
giving him a list of their names; chaigcs, as relates to me, 
that are incontestibly j)roved to be false. But Mr. South- 
ard has not, in the sliglitest degree, so much as attended 
to the evidence, which has been produced, to \n-ove them so. 
All that is kept out of sight, in this semi-officiaL and most 
labored Report. It was, certainly, the readiest way, to 
accomplish the task he had undertaken; for it would not 
have been quite so easy, to have arrived at liis covclu' 
5io7iS, with this evidence staring him in the face, at every line. 
But how far I am guilty, or not, he has the kind chari- 
ty to say, cannot now, be easily determined, either by my 



68 

evidence, or the records of this Department. N\liy, tiieii, 
did he deem it expedient to insinuate, so strongly, that he 
believed me guilty. It would have been more manly, to 
hhve said so at once, and boldly have assigned his leasons; 
than to have intimated that he thought so, upon the strengih 
of the reasons given by Mr. Stoddert. This is slid- 
ing vary quietly over a diiliculty, it would have been 
otherwise, nnpossible to surmount. If this learned report 
is to be atSopted by the nation, for the law and the facts in 
my case, all difficulty is easily overcome. My own evi- 
dence, it is believed, is conclusive, that I am not guilty at 
all, in any part of this transaction — and aside from the 
assertions of Mr. Stoddert, unsupported by a single fact, 
the records of the Department, are equally conclusive in 
my favor. Had Mr. Southard been employed, as council, 
to ha\ e made an argument against me, and so far as his 
talents and ingenuity would have carried him, to have made 
"the worse ap])f.ar the netter reason,'' I should have ex- 
pf ( ted, precisely such a statement of facts, and such a re- 
port, as are here produced. Or had it been necessary to 
protect some other and more powerful interest than mine, 
by defeating my petition, consequently, whatever could be 
sought out by inference, or imagined by a fertile invention, 
shi)uld be adopted for truth, provided it operated against 
me; while every circumstance in my favor, was to be over- 
looked, forgotten, or discarded, as /a/seAoorf, 1 should have 
anticipated, exactly, such a result. But from the Secretary 
of the Navy; from one of the highest olficei's of the Govern- 
me,.i,who was asmuch bound to afford me protection and sup- 
port, as he was to brand me with censure; who should have 
felt no interest in this case, but that equal justice be done, 
both to uje, and to the country; and that my claim should 
be decided, legally, impartially, and justly, for the honour 
of the govcrnineMt, as well as for the interest of the nation, 
something different from this report, might have been ex- 
pected. 



69 

Mr. Southard tliinks, that my not having any commis- 
sion, was no excus< ,• and alles;es, 1 know not from what 
autlioritv, that no question-was made about my commission. 
He certainly niiglit liave believed this, but it happens not 
to be exactly the fact. Or it is even possible, he did not 
mean to assert it as a fact, but only relied upon it, by way 
of argument, ovfancij'ul illustration. He says it was not 
asked for. 1 say it was. He says tliat Commodore Lor- 
ing had much the strongest foice, and that usage and cour- 
tesy required him, first to shew his commission, if he 
wished to see mine. The first part of this declaration is, 
indeed, true. But I wonder Mr. Southard should have 
deemed it necessary to admit the fact; that he did not 
leave it to be inferred, that mine was the superior force. 
For he says without any qualification whatever, that Lor- 
ing did not shew his commission, or ask to see mine. I^ow 
I say he did both, or what was equivalent. He offered to 
produce his commission, it was ready for niy inspection, 
and then demanded to see mine. I might ha\e read his 
commission, if I had chosen to do so; it was not his fault 
that I did not. But if I had, I should have been bound at 
once to have produced my own. i could not avail myself 
of a courtesy from /jzm, that I could not return. I was 
obliged, therefore, to evade the productions of the com- 
missions, by saying, mine was not about me. This I could 
do, with some propriety, as I was on board his ship. But 
to get rid of the necessity of producing my commission al- 
together, and also to conceal the fact, that I had none, I 
produced my apj)ointment, signed by Benjamin Stoddert, 
which I happened to have about me. He treated it with much 
the same ceremony, and neaily in the same way, that Mr. ^%^ 0^'^^ 
Southard has my evidence; "Ae dicLknow Benjamin Stod- 
dert,^' and could not notice his appointment. Stoddert had 
no power to appoint Captains in the Navy: he must see my 
commission, or he could not recognize the character of my 
ship. All this is true, and I challenge Mr. Southard, to 
produce any testimony, w liatever, to disprove it, or to sup- 
port his own declarations. He may have been misled, in 



•^^•^•fet^ 



70 

making thesa assertions, and no doubt lie \Aas, by some 
mean or other; but, a man wlio is making" a statement ol" 
facts, and framing a report npon tliem, upon wliich an im- 
portant case is to be decided, that material!}' effects the go- 
vernment, and the honor and interest of an individual, in 
every respect liis equal, but in ofikial dignity, should be 
careful to examine liis statement of facts, before he haz- 
ards assertions, of what is, or is not true. 

Mr. Southard says, that if! had shewn my commission, 
witiiout Commodore Loring had fiistsiiewn me his, 1 would 
have deserved expulsion from the Navy. This is certain- 
ly, a most finished conclusion! He says too, that tlie char- 
acter of my vessel uus not questioned, and that if I '/,'«(/ huiV 
my commission, tiiere was no possible reason, wliy 1 should 
Lave shewn it. I say the character of my vessel ivas ques- 
tioned, and for the \ery reason, because I Itcid not my 
commission, nor any other official document, to prove her 
character. That the same outrage might have been at- 
tempted, with my commission in my pocket, is possible: 
for the known character of our national sliips, have not 
always protected theui from abuse, from the British, in 
time of peace; but with it, this insult would have been dif- 
ferently met. 

Mr. Southard next alleges, that no evil did occur, from 
my not havir;g my commission; and that lie cannot per- 
ceive, that iLuy possibly could have occurred. That he does 
not pei'ceive it, is not conclusive evidence, I suppose, that 
none did occur. If none did, thru it was no evil to take 
my men; noise for me to suffer it, and if there was no 
evil in the transaction, no l.dame could attach to me, for 
any share 1 had in it: consequently, I was illegally and un- 
justly punished, and am therefore, justly entitled to redress. 
lie says my olllcers ^re all Americans. Tliat is true, 
but they too, were as destitute of commissions, as I was. 
Ibis, I suppose, Mr. Southard might, with equal justice, 
say, was my fault, and not the fault of the De])artment. As 
they have never, to my knowledge, been censured for go- 
ing to sea without theii" commissions, 1 suppose, the whole 



blame iias been laid ii])oji my shoulders. He says too, 
that I was on board a vessel of twenty guns, bearing eve- 
ry mark of her national character. That she carried twen- 
ty guns, is true; hut a pirate might have carried as many, 
or even more, and the same marks of national character, 
to conceal her true one, and after ail, have been a pirate. 
I do not believe the Oritish doubted our national charac- 
ter, in reality; but tiiey were not obliged to recognize it, 
witliout that legal evidence, wliich is acknowledged by the 
laws and usages of nations. That evidence is no otiier, 
than the Commission of the commanding officer; and for 
the want of it, the character of my vessel was questioned. 
Every officer and sailor, says Mr. Southard, was a testi- 
monial not to be misunderstood. This is an assertion in 
the very teetli of the fact. As to my officers, they were, at 
best, but blank testimonials, for the reasons I have just 
mentioned; and as for the men, tfiey were misunderstood 
foi' fifty-five of them were taken for British sailors, and 
{}\e out of the number, were retained as such, and never 
returned. Had I met a French vessel, Mr. Southard says, 
and my character I, ad been asked, it would have been mv 
duty to have returned a very different answer, frctm the 
exhibition of my commission. I most cordially thank the 
Secretary, for this valiant intimation, although I knew as 
much before. My instructions did, indeed, permit me to 
bluster, a little, at a Frenchman; but they demanded ra- 
ther more humility to,an Englishman, than even I could 
willingly shew. Meeting ♦an English vessel he savs, 
the circumstances before mentioned would naturallif pre- 
vent all enquiry; but should it have been made, and 
the commission of the vessel making it, shown 1 had 
or ought to have had, more than enough in my possession, 
to furnish a conclusive reply. Is this fair argument? Is 
it eitlier lil)eral, candid, or just, to reason from a state of 
thin.a:s that did not exist in the case, and then draw con- 
clusions from them, as if the facts were so? Was it right 
to make a case to suit his purpose, and then assert that 
such was the case before bim, though entirely different? I 



72 

did meet, not only an English vessel,hut?in English squad- 
ron of vessels, and not one of the circumstances, that Mr. 
•Southard has mentioned, with so much confidence, did na- 
turally prevent an enquiry for my commission. It was 
made, and must, therefore, have been most ^innntural. Yet 
itwasmadeby the commanding; oiScer, and after having 
proffered me his. I am jH-rfectly aware, that the documents 
IhHd,oro"^/if to have had,would have been more than enough 
to havefurnisiiedme with a suitable reply, to the demand for 
evidence, of the character of my ship. What Ihad was my 
appointment, which, with my commission would not have 
been wanted. That would have been more than enough. What 
I ought to have had, was my commission, which I had not, 
and without it, the other was no evidence at all. 

The Secretary is quite correct in his logic, when he says, 
the documents / had^ or ought to have had^ would have 
been n)ore than enough. But he seemed to have forgotten, 
or not to know, that what I ought to havehad was my com- 
mission, and that, without it, all the other documents on 
board, were good for notliing, in establishing the charac- 
ter of my ship. In reply to the declaration, tliat my let- 
ter of appointment was all that any foreign oliicer had a 
right to demand, I hazard little in saying, that it is neith- 
er correct in law, nor in practice. No foreign officer is 
bound to respect any evidence of authority, but that which 
emanates from the power, that by the law of the country, 
can legally give it. Is that the Secretary of the Navy, 
or the President and Senate'of the United States? Is it 
to be proved by an appointment of the Secretary of some 
subordinate department of the Government, or by a Com- 
mission, signed by the President, countersigned by the 
Secretary, and un(^er the seal of the Nation? Which is 
the best evidence, the highest authority? Mr. Southard 
knows well what answer to give. He can not be ignorant 
of what is necessary in such a case. But his argument 
goes farther, and. though it runs a little wild, yet I must 
follow him. He says, I had my private instructions. 
Was I to expose them to the scrutiny of Strangers? Is 



73 

this the langiia.i^e of tlic department of the Navy of the 
United States, in ei.e;liteen hundred and twenty five? Why 
e;\ve private instructions, if they are, upon any account, to ^ 
be used as public documents? W a s my private letters to /^^.^^ 
share the same fate? For they arc all mentioned as the docu- 
ments Iliad, or ought to have had. And what evidence, of the 
character of my ship, let me ask, was a printed copy of the 
Acts of Congress, that any seaman could have obtained at 
a book store, who had either money or credit to buy one* 
I might as well have produced a copy of the Old Testament^ 
and attempted to have proved by it, that my ship was M)uh''s 
Ark. It would have been evidence as much in point, and 
have served my purpose quite as well. My list of signals, 
it is true, was some evidence, and the only evidence I had on 
board, to prove the character of my vessel, that was enti- 
tled to any respect. 

Mr. Southard asks, wiih much apparent confidence, tvho 
would venture to deny my national character, and act on the 
denial? I answer, any man who commanded a superior 
force, would have ventured, and Commodore Loring did 
venture to deny it, and act upon the denial. And what is 
more, his Government sustained liiin for having dared to 
do it. Nor is he the only officer, whom the Bi'itisb Govern- 
ment, has not only sustained, but actually promoted, for 
violations of our National Sovereignty, and the dignity 
of our Flag. Mr. Southard should not, even for the pur- 
pose of this report, have asked this question, and then, 
exultingly, have answered it himself, **surely not the Brit- 
ish.** He should not have hazarded this declaration, un- 
less he had been certain that the American })eople had lost 
their recollection of the past, and that our whole history is 
a libel. 

I can easily pardon the Hon. Secretary, for the chari- 
table suggestion, with which he closes this part of his lu- 
minous report. For if it is human to err, he has furnished 
conclusive evidence, in this document, that, in him, nature 
has been true to herself. 
K 



74 

Affain tl-e Serretary refers to the declarations of Mr. 
Stoddert, and relies exclusively upon them, in forming his 
opinions; without taking the least notice of the mass of 
testimony that I have produced, to prove these declara- 
tions untrue. This JvuTence, I repeat, was among the 
papers that were helore him, and from which he was re- 
quired to make a statement of facts. He could neither 
have remained ignorant of the fact, or of the nature and 
force of this testimony. It might not have been sufficient to 
have satisfied his mind, for what evidence has power to con- 
vince a man against his will! But it is strange he should 
not at least, have alluded to it, if it was for no oth- 
er purpose than to refute it. Yet nitwithstanding the 
numerous discrepancies, and striking contradictions in the 
statements of Mr. Stoddert, the Secretary bases his re- 
port entirely upon them, and so far as his statement of facts 
goes, no man on earth could, for a moment, suppose, that 
there was any other testimony in the v.hole case. He re- 
peats tlie unfounded charge of Mr. Stoddeit, that f<»r 
gross misconduct in submitting to the orders of the British 
Lieutenant, \ was dismissed. Mr. Stoddert knew when he 
made that charge, that it was without foundation. It was 
maliciously false. There was not an officer, or man on 
board the Baltimore, not even excepting his own kinsman, 
my first Lieutenant; the officer who permifted the acts im- 
puted to me; all of whose testimony was within the reach of 
the government, but wlio would have unanimously proved, 
that these charges were false and unfounded. They would 
have proved more, and those who are now alive, do prove 
more; that there was not a shadow of justice to sustain 
them, nor a reasonable pretext for their being made. If 
Mr. Southard had ever examined the whole of the testimo- 
ny, and intended to have embi-aced in his report, an ini- 
paitlal view of the whole case^ he must have known it like- 
wise. With what degree of fairness, with what consisten- 
cy then, does he bring into this report, every charge against 
me, and yet sedulously keep out of view, all the testimony 



tliat goes to refute those chaj'ges? Was such conduct to 
liave been expected from tiie Secretary of the Navy? Are 
errors to be corrected, injuries redressed, fraud and impo- 
sition exposed and punished, and justice to be administered 
by such rules of practice? Is the integrity of tlie Gctvern- 
Uient to be sustained by such means? Is the confidence of 
the nation and tlie world, to be acquired and retained, by 
such an exhibition of the purity of its m(»tives, and the 
justice and iinpartiality of its conduct? I do not censure 
Mr. Southai'd f^r tlie opinions he has formed^ he has ad- 
vanced them as iiis own, and is entitled to enjoy them, 
without being answerable to me. But he is answerable for 
their propriety and expression, when he promulgates them, 
both to me and the world. It is a matter of very little 
moment to mc, vviietiier he considers me guilty or irmo- 
cent, of these charges. I have appealed to a higher tri- 
bunal for judgment; one as competent as himself to form 
opinions, and one that will hear, and examine all the tes- 
timony, and decide ui)on the whole case. But I complain 
of the unfair and partial statements Mr. Southard has 
made, and the manner in which he lias framed and express- 
ed his opinions. And altht)ugli he does not seem to think 
it of much importance, whether 1 am guilty or not, or 
wiiat my statements contain, as regards my Petition to be 
restored to my rank in the Navy, yet he is pleased to say, 
these circu nstances might be useful to my character. 
Why tlien, let me ask, did he not lay all these circumstan- 
ces before the President in his report? Common justice 
demanded it of him, and why was he silent upon the subject? 
ff my character did nyt rest upon a firmer basis, both as 
an officer and as a man, than the false and malicious char- 
ges of Secretaiy Stoddert, and the garbled statements, 
and partial report, of Secretary Southard, I would clothe 
myself in sackcloth at once, and sit down in despair. 

If my dismissal from the service v/as legal, Mr. South- 
ard says, 1 am without relief. Be it so. I base mjself 
upon this position, the converse of which must be equally 



76 

true; If I was not legalhj ilismissedf I am entitled to relief. 
To its legality lie says, I raise three objeclions. Fii-st, be- 
cause I had 110 commission. This is not an objection to 
the legalit> of my dismission, but to its justice. I might 
have been legally dismissed, having been so in cojifor- 
iDity to law, by a competent power; and yet that dis- 
mission have been most unjust. It might have been 
the effect of corruption; have been obtained by fraud 
or perjury, in violation ofalljiislicef and yet have been le- 
gal. It would not have been legally void^ but legally void- 
able, and thert fore entitled to relief, if the facts could be 
proved. Was not my dismission unjust? Is not its injus- 
tice proved, beyond all doubt? If the manner of my dis- 
jnission was strictly legal, which I utterly deny, does that 
sanctify its injustice? The object of all law, is the pro- 
motion of justice. Can an act he sanctioned by the forms 
of law, then, which defeat its very end and purpose, and 
yet be irremediable? One would think not. Yet Mr South- 
ard thinks, that if his view of my objection, that I had no 
commission^ be correct, there is no validity in this point. 
I hope he will admit the reverse of this position, also to 
be true; that If his view of this point be incorrect^ thut there 
is some validity in this objection. That it is incorrect, I 
liave attempted to i)rove. How far 1 have succeeded, the 
public will determine. 

My second objection, he says, is the difference of the 
letter of dismission received by me, and the one placed up- 
on the records of the department; by which he presumes 
I consider the transaction so stamped with fraud and con- 
niption, that it ought not to be sustained. And in addi- 
tion to this, that if I had received such a letter, at that 
time, as the one found upon record, I should have been 
able to have proved the falsity of the charges, and have re- 
lieved myself from the punishment. Mr. Southard's pre- 
sumptions, upon both these points, are cei'tainly correct. 
But it seems, that he is not satii-fied with tliefact, or with 
my conclusion. I re.e:r» t that I have been so unfortunate 
as not to satisfy him in either. I hope I shall be more 



77 

successful with the public, which I do not expect to find 
quite so sceptical, and witk which I shall stand more upon 
a level with my official opponents, Mr. Stoddert, and his re- 
cord. As to what 1( tter was sent to, and received by me, he 
says, I assert upon the honour of an officer and a gentleman, 
and offer to testify, that the letter received by ma contained 
no censure on my conduct^ nor did it assign any reason for my 
dismission. 1 did offer sucli a certificate, upon the honor 
of an officer and a gentleman, a voucher that no man has 
ever yet dared to impeach. It is a certificate offered 
upon terms, that were once understood, even at the Navy 
department, and I trust are so still. I did offer, besides, 
to testify to it, which I have done; not because I thought it 
strengthened my assertion, but because it is the legal sanc- 
tion to such a document; and which, Mr. Southard, having 
been bred a lawyer, I supposed, would understand. I 
have also presented the statements of David Winchester, 
Esquire, and Mrs. Elizabeth Phillips, both, he says, very 
respectable intelligent persons^ who confirm my assertions, 
and though he gives us all full credit for the sincerity of our 
belief, and the purity of our motives, yet he does not place 
any reliance upon our accuracy. Does he think us ideots 
then? Their certificates are given under the oaths of the 
persons mentioned, and I assure Mr.Southard, that they do 
not suffer by a comparison with himself, for intelligence 
or integrity. There are strong reasons why they should 
correctly have remembered the facts they state, as well 
as myself, and none why they should have forgotten them; 
and certainly none, if they entertained a doubt of their cor- 
rectness, why they should have testified to them. They 
have no interest in this question, and by whomever they 
are known, will never be suspected to have erred in their 
statements, the high character of Mr. Southard's suspicions 
to the contrary, notwithstanding. But he does not believe 
them, because they relate to a transaction that took place 
a quarter century ago; the length and contents of a letter, 
about which the human memory might readily err, and he 



78 

thinks Uiut oiiis do. lie might tiave had a better reason, 
one neai-er home, if he had but.the frankness to liave avow- 
ed it: because they contradict Mr. Stoddert's assertions and 
his record, and put an end to all his opinions, which must 
have cost him some trouble to have given. But although 
Mr. Southard does not rely upon our three affidavits, 
and thinks they are erroneous; yet he cannot discover the 
least error or inconsistency in the statements of Mr. Stod- 
dert, though in perfect contradiction, and made within one 
month of each other. One would think, that if length */ 
time should tender testimony suspicioiis, that was concur- 
rent throughout; that shortness of time should weaken the 
credit of that, wiiich was absolutely contradictory. 

Mr. Southard says, it is very improbable, that an ofli' 
cer who had been appointed only seven months before, and 
in whom the secretary had, moie than once, expressed his 
confidence, should have been dismissed without a cause; 
at a time when his services were required. Hence he in- 
fers that tliere was a cause, and the next inference is, that 
it was the cause assigned by Mr. Stoddert, all the evidence 
to the contrary, notwithstanding. In common cases, I ad- 
mit, such a procedure might appear strange; and if no other 
reason could be faii-ly assigned for it, his inferences 
would seem to be just. But, even admitting Mr. Stoddert 
to have been actuated by the purest motives; yet it is evi- 
dent, that he acted under a mistake of the facts. Admit- 
ting also, that the President thought there was cause for 
my disuiission, and ordered it as Mr. Stoddert alleges; yet 
if from any impressions, he acted prematurely and unjust- 
ly, does that furnish a reason why I should not have re- 
dress, wlienever I can make those facts appear? If the con- 
stitutional powers of the President were transcended by 
this act, provided Mr. Stoddert's assertions are true, am I 
still, without remedy? 

But there was a sufficient reason to induce Mr. Stoddert to 
do this, in the way Mr. Adams seems to believe it was done, 
and whicli, at once, obviates all difficulties in understanding 



79 

its true cliaracter; and which shews, that it was not so very 
strange as Mr. Southard stipposes. It was a question uith 
him, whr) should bo punished ftr Ills ne^j^lie;ence, himself 
or me. If the blame of this affair could not, by an^ con- 
trivance, be fixed upon me; if some plausible pretext could 
nov be seized upon, tochaigeme with misconduct, and dis- 
miss me from the service, with such a weight of odium up- 
on me, that I must necessarily sink under it; tlie truth 
would ultimately appear; the whole blame would fall upon 
himself, and inevitably drive him from power in disgrace. 

It became a question then, who should stand or fall, him- 
self or me. And what project so likely to effect his pur- 
pose, as a sudden and unexpected dismission from the ser- 
vice, without deigning to assign a reason for it, hy which 
the eyes of the whole country would at once, be fixed upon 
me, as an object of disgrace, of prompt and energetic jus- 
tice; and stamped with a record of charges, most likely va ith 
the American people, to dishonour my name, and render 
it difficult for me to repel them. It was a bold and daring ef- 
fort, I admit, but one that has succeeded in affairs of state, 
nioie than once. If he failed, and I should finally have suc- 
ceeded in justifying myself and in regaining my station 
and the blame had consequently fallen upon him: he would 
have been in no worse condition, and most probably would 
have fixed a suspicion upon me, that with a portion of 
the community, at least, would have divided the odium 
with him. With these he would have gained a share of sym- 
pathy, who would seek to palliate his ctmduct, by throw- 
ing as much of the blame as possible upon me. Kad he 
no probable cause, then, for his conduct? Is not this inference 
justified by the history of this transaction? The evidence is 
before the public, and I am willing to abide their decision. 

Mr Southard's second reason, for thinking it improbable 
that the recorded letter is not the one sent to me, is, that 
on the same day, a letter was addressed to Lieutenant 
Speake, who was left in command of my vessel, and is re- 
corded with it, in which a reason vas assigned for my dis- 



80 

mission. And then he asks, is it at all prohable, that he 
would have g^iven a reason to the liieiiteiiant, and witliheld 
it from me? Let it be rememhered. Fellow Citizens, that 
this Lieutenant Speake was the kinsman of Mr. Stoddertj 
that he was the first Lieutenant of the Baltimore under my . 
command; and ivas the officer on hoard, who obeyed the or- 
ders of the British Lieutenant, in calling all hands^ and giv- 
ing him a list of their names, while I was absent from my 
sliip; charges which Mr. Stoddert has so often made a- 
gainst me, and for wliich, he says, I was dismissed from 
the service. It was this same Lieutenant Speake, who 
called all hands, and not me; it was he who obeye'l the or- 
ders of the British (]fficer^ and not me; it was he w ho gave 
the list of their names^ and not me, for I took it from the 
British Officer when I came on board, and ordered the men 
to quarters. I do not blame Lieutenant Speake for this, 
but I blame Mr. Stoddert for charging me with his mis- 
conduct, ff'liij was not he dismissed! Why was he suffer- 
ed to escape without censure, and left in command of the 
Baltimore, who suifered the indignity to the American flag, 
so vehemently complained of, and the whole transaction 
charged upon me? Mr. Stoddert knew all these facts, he 
had them from me. He could hold correspondence with 
Lieutenant Speake, he could have obtained them from him. 
The other Officers and the crew were within his reach, he 
could, if he had wished it, have ascertained the truth from 
them. If he doubted the accuracy of my statement, he 
could have enquired of others. There was no room for 
errors, no palliation for his rondiict. I was to be sacrificed 
to screen the secretary and his kinsman, and it was neces- 
sary the plan of operati"ns should be consistent. It was 
necessary, when he had framed a letter of dismissal for me, 
that would answei' to place iqjon record, that Lieutenant 
Speake should know what had been done for their mutual 
benefit. And if he was to remain in command of the ship, 
it was necessary also, tliat t!ip same reason assigned for my 
dismissal upon record, should likewise be communicated to 
him. 



81 

This too, at some future day, might serve to strengthen 
the credit of the records. It has produced that effect, at 
least, upon the mind of Mr. Southard. But he enquires, 
if the Ietf;=. had coRtaiRcd no reasons, would they not have 
• bee?/asked? No doubt, hence it was necessary to furnish 
Lieutenant Speake with an answer* He says, so far as the 
contents of the letter received from me, can be known from 
the answer to it, mine contained a statement refuting the 
allegations of misconduct. Why then, he asks, refute a 
charge not made? Why deny the existence of a -particular 
factj when neither that, or any other reason had been giv- 
en? These ai-e indeed most profound queries^ and it requi- 
red the sagacity of Mr. Southard's genius to have conceiv- 
ed them. 1 must, in the nature of things, have known the 
character of tlie whole transaction with Commodore Loring. 
AVhen I was dismissed from the service immediately after, 
and that having been the only affair in which I had been en- 
gaged, while in the service, I must have known that I was 
dismissed upon that account. And is it so far beyond the 
comprehension of the Secretary, that he cannot conceive it 
possible, or even probable, that 1 could have justified myself 
by making a statcmcnt,refuting all allegations of misconduct 
in an affair, the whole of which I understood, and some part, 
or the whole, I must have known, was censured by my dis- 
missal, general as it was, without my knowledge of the par- 
licular reason} Surely this is descending to quibbles, almost 
too trifling to answer. It is unmanly sophistry, beneath the 
candour of an honest mind, or the dignity of the Secre- 
tary. 

Mr. Southard^s fourth reason is, that; on the 6th of Feb- - 
ruary, 1799, Mr. Stoddert wrote to Captain Truxtun, and 
assigns the motive for my dismission. That letter is here 
published, as well as a statement, shewing Captain Trux- 
tun's opinion of the transaction. And why, he asks, should 
he assign reasons to him, and not to the man dismissed? I 
answer, that having taken the course he did against me, it be- 
came necessary, to himself, to strengthen his proceedings by 
endeavouring, by every mean in his power, to render them 



83 

consistent; by using every effort to encrease tlie odium, Iiin 
dismissal could not fail to occasion, where the facts were 
not known. For in.- the same proportion as he could, by 
any artifice or management, remlerjiie c.uliJ.".Je, in the 
affair with Loring, would he stand acquitted, foi the 
course he had pursued against me: while it served, also, 
to conceal his own misconduct. 

Mr Southard's fifth reason is, because Mr. Stoddert evi- 
dently designs, in his lettei- of the 20th February, 1799, 
to support his reasons by argument; and alleges he had 
submitted those reasons to the President. Mr. Adams 
says, howi'ver, that this is not true, and denies his know- 
ledge of, or pai ticipation in my dismission; and concludes 
by saying, he suspects I never was dismissed. But the 
contradictory statements in Mr. Stoddert's attempted argu- 
ments, and the evidence of Mr. Adams, that the whole 
proceeding relative to my dismission, was a piece of frau- 
dulent management of the Secretary , seem to be sufficient to 
entitle this letter to the highest respect and confidence of 
Mr. Southard; not I suppose, because they are of that 
character, but because this letter supplies hiin with an in- 
ference, at least, in support of a favorite opinion. But what 
is most conclusive with Mr. Southard, upon this point, 
is, that a letter of the same date is found upon record. And 
though that record contains charges that are contradic- 
ted by all the testimony, yet, in as much as it is a record, he 
seems to feel himself bound to pay a profound respect to it, 
even against the force of evidence, and the dictates of reason 
and common sense. For he says, whether the reason be 
true or false, it matters not, the letter is recorded. The 
amount of the whole of which is, a record is, a record. A 
most profound and logical conclusion, certainly, and one, 
that the genius of few men, ever could have arrived at. 

But the Hon. Secretary, after wading through a deep 
and heavy course of most profound argument, cutting logic, 
and ingenious reasoning, at length arrives at the very apt 
conclusion, which no one, who can combine two ideas, will 
for one moment dispute — that if the letter of dismission on 



83 

record was not written or sent, the record has been false- 
ly made, and if so, it must have been made so, deliberately 
and knowingly. That it has been so made, it docs not 
require a second Daniel to decipher. 

It is magnanimous and kind in Mr. Southard, not to 
desire to cast upon the memory of the late Secretary, an im- 
putation so serious. It certainly was no part of his duty 
to have done it, nor was it necessary to have cast imputa- 
tions upon me. All he had to do was, to lay a candid 
and impartial statement of the whole cose before the presi- 
dent. He was not bound to cast imputations upon any 
one. The evidence speaks for itself, quite as clearly, as 
he can speak of it. It was no part of his duty, either to 
cast imputations, or draw conclusions. But when be 
chose to do bot!i, and adopt all Mr. Stoddert had said and 
done as conclusive evidence, that it was true, correctly and 
legally done, and to disregard every thing that had a ten- 
dency to contradict it, he was compelled to cast imputa- 
tions, either on him or me; and not only so, but upon 
every one, who has given any testimony against the truth 
of Mr. Stoddert's assertions, and the correctness of his 
conduct. He has made his election, and must abide the 
consequences. It is too late for Mr. Southard to gain cred- 
it, for his generous feelings, and his great respect for the 
memory and character of the dead, when he has volun- 
tarily travelled so far out of his direct way, to cast impu- 
tations upon the living. 

But Mr. Southard says, if this is not the record of the 
letter sent to me, he does not perceive that it can avail me 
in my petition, because, I did receive a letter, dismissitig 
me, and left the service in consequence of it: and he now 
admits, what, but a moment before, he seemed to think mys- 
terious, and passing all beliefs that it is impossible I could 
have been ignorant of the cause of my dismission, whether 
the letter assigned the reasons or not. A few minutes since, 
for the sake of supporting his argument, he seemed to think 
it impossible I could have made a statement, refuting the 
charges of misconduct against me, unless the letter of dis- 



84 

missal had contained the ■particular fad. Now, for the like 
purpose, I suppose, he asserts, with equal confidence, that 
whether my letter of dismissal assigned any reason for it, 
or not, it is impossible I could have been ignorant of the 
cause. And then, to quiet all further difficulty, as though 
his perceptions must be the standard of right or wrong, he 
says, that if my letter of dismissal did not contain any rea- 
son for it, he cannot perceive that I suffered any evil from 
it. My explanation upon that point has been given, and 
the public will judge of it. All the favor I ask, is, that 
the standard, set up by Mr. Southard, may not be adopted, 
in coming to a conclusion upon this point. 

Mr. Southard's next point is, that I object to the legality 
of my dismission, because it was without the knowledge 
or consent of the President, and that I contend, it is there- 
fore void. And here, I believe, for the first time, he al- 
ludes to any evidence I have produced in this whole case; 
the evidence contained in the statements of Mr. Adams. 
He, however, thinks Mr. Adams has not expressed iiim- 
self with quite confidence enough^ upon this point, although 
his impressions are strong. He seems to be aware of the 
retentiven'^ss of his memory, and the vigour of his intellect, 
even at this late period of life. But mark the consequences. 
As though it would be the highest injustice, or produce 
some great national calamity, if I were to obtain any re- 
dress for the injury that has been done me, Mr. Southard 
cannot, even with his fertile invention^ contrive any possi- 
ble way or mean, by which he can reconcile the impres- 
sions of Mr. Adams, however strong, with the truth. I 
know it is impossible, with such truth as he wishes to es- 
tablish. Hence, he cannot arrive at any other conclusion, 
than that, in this instance, the memory of Mr. Adams fails 
him. He seems to forget, or rather, not to have taken in- 
to his account of inferences, that at the time Mr. Adams 
made these declarations, his memory was not so much im- 
paired as it probably is now; that he was then more vigo- 
rous, both in body and mind, than when he saw him. He 
aeems to have forgotten too, that Mr. Adams recollected 



85 

all the other circumstances of this affair, with perfect accu- 
racy, and that his recollections are corrohorated by all the 
other testimony. What reason, then, to suppose his me- 
mory fails in this ? If his recollections had been contra- 
dicted by other testimony, in relation to any other part of 
the transaction, I admit it would have furnished reasons to 
suppose, his memory might also have failed him upon 
tliis point. It is a rule, in giving effect to testimony, that 
if a witness, whose veracity alone is not entitled to credit, 
testifies to facts, that are confirmed by other witnesses, 
whose truth and veracity are unquestioned, that it gives 
strength to his testimony, and confirms the whole of his state- 
ments. Mr. Adams' recollections of this transaction, are 
confirmed by the concurrent testimony o? all the witnesses, 
who have described it; and yet, because it does not happen 
to suit Mr. Southard's views of my case, he is unwilling to 
allow him as much credit for his statements, as the lowest 
of mankind obtain, under similar circumstances, in a Court 
of Justice. Surely Mr. Adams should thank him for the 
high compliment, paid to his understanding and integrity. 
He has no hesitation, therefore, in pronouncing him 
to be mistaken. And what we%ft/i/ reason does he assign, 
for supposing that Mr. Adams is incorrect? Why, one 
of his overwhelming inferences; because he cannot think^ or 
more propei-ly, because it is inconvenient for him to think^ 
that Mr. Stoddert would, on his own responsibility, have 
performed so high an exercise of power; and because, he 
had four times published, and then recorded, a folsehood 
about it: although he had strong reasons for doing it, and 
his very publications and records of the falsehood, from the 
effect he saw they were producing, was calculated to con- 
ceal the fraud. But he can find no difficulty, in supposing 
Mr. Adams to be under a mistake, without any reason 
whatever. 

Mr. Southard says, that such a departure from every 
thing legal and honourable, would immediately have been 
followed by detection. He undoubtedly would have been 
detected, but from a notion that </ie« seemed to prevail, that 



the President had power to dismiss an officer, without a 
trial. My demand for a public investigation having been 
refused me, induced me and my friends to conclude, that Mr. 
Adams would deny me all redress; and from our having 
no suspicion, at that time, that these were not entirely the 
acts of the President, as Mr. Stoddert alleged — and what 
had still more influence over me, the powerful intercessions 
of my political fi-iends, that I would not injure the cause 
of his re-election to the Presidency, the period for which 
was approaching, and which, from the high tone of parties, 
evidently was doubtful, I was induced against my feelings, 
and my betterjudgment, to remain quiet. And it was not 
until long afterwards, by mere accident,that I obtained suffi- 
cient, and what I considered, conclusive evidence of the 
fraud that had been practised upon me, and the illegality of 
my dismissal, when I determined to bring the matter to a 
public hearing. Pursuing his chain of reasoning upon this 
point, Mr. Southard, at last, arrives at the conclusion, that 
the power of dismissing me was exercised by the Execu- 
tive, as it is recorded, and that Mr. Adams has forgotten 
some parts of this transaction. Hence, he says, he has no 
doubt, I was dismissed by competent and legal authori- 
ty. 

But, whether the President possessed the power of dis- 
missing me from the service, without a trial by a Court 
Martial, or not, is immaterial in the present case, for he 
has denied that he ever exercised that power, or gave au- 
thority to the Secretary to do it. in his name. I am wil- 
ling to risk his declarations, upon tliis subject, with the 
American people, even against tiie wise doubts, conscious 
misgivings, and luminous inferences, of Mr. Southard. If 
he did not possess the power, my dismissal was certainly 
illegal. If ho did j)osscss it, but did not exercise it, as he 
asserts, my dismissal was no less illegal, for no other per- 
son could exercise an authority, vested alone in him. 

Biit although it may not effect my case, yet, as the dic- 
tum in the Naval Chronicle, has raised the question in re- 
gard to me, it may not be improper to enquire, upon what 



87 

principle, the exercise of this high prerogative of sovereign- 
ty, is claimed for the President of the United States. Some 
of the most distinguished and intelligent among the framers 
of the Federal Constitution, have denied, that the 
President had porver to dismiss a Commissioned Officer^ of 
the drmij or A'avy, tcithout a trial by a Court Martial, 
Many of the ablest men our country has ever produced, 
have entertained the same opinion. I am aware that there 
are contrary opinions of respectable authority, and that by 
a kind of common consent, this power has, by many, been 
conceded. But no such concession, it is believed, can con- 
fer a power upon the President, not delegated to him by 
the Constitution, either in express terms, or by necessary 
implication, aS incident to the exercise of some authority, 
specially conferred. [ am sensible, also, that cases have 
occurred, in which tliis power has been exercised, and that 
in raising this question therefore,"/irearf upon holy ground." 
But there are conflii ting opinions upon tliis subject, entitled 
to high respect. They are of serious moment, and no injury 
can accrue by their being settled, to the understanding of 
the American people. It is, comparatively, of little conse- 
quence to whom power is delegated; but it is of the higli- 
est importance, that the people should know in whom it is 
vested, and who may legally exercise so high a preroga- 
tive. 

If the President of the United States possesses this power, 
he has derived it in one of three ways. It is either an in- 
cident of Sovereignty, necessary to the Executive author- 
ity, not otherwise provided for ; A power specially dele- 
gated to him by the Constitution ; Or, it is conferred by 
implication, as incidental and necessary to the exercise of 
some power, thus delegated. 

Is this power an incident of Sovereignty, necessary to 
the Executive authority, not otherwise provided for ? It 
is humbly conceived, that it is not. In the arbitrary and 
despotic governments of Europe, all jiower is vested in the 
Sovereign, and emanates from him. Even in England, the 
most limited monarchy in the world, the King is still the 



88 

fountain of honor, and of power. And bcingso, he retains all 
that he has not, from time to time, either from necessity or 
choice, specially ceded away to the people. Ma.^na Char^ 
ta, the great hulvvark of British freedom, as well as every 
vestige of liberty which the people of Great Britain enjoy, 
under their Constitution, are all cessions of power, of thia 
character. It follows, then, as the King is the original 
fountain of all power, that he retains whatever he has not 
thus ceded away. He can exercise this power, for he has 
not ceded it away. He can create offices; appoint officers 
to fill them; can confer titles of honor; declare war and 
make peace. As he alone can make appointments, they 
are held at his pleasure, consequently he has the power to 
annul or revoke them. It is expedient that he should exer- 
cise it, for that power is vested no where else. 

In this country, we see the reverse of all this. Here all 
power is vested in, and emanates from the people. They 
retain in their hands all the power of the Nation, but what 
they have specially delegated to their rulers, by the Con- 
stitution. The People^ are here, the Sovereis;iu Whatever 
power they have delegated to their rulers, those rulers can 
exercise, and no more; the rest, the people have retained. 
This is in accordance with the provisions of the tenth arti-» 
cle of the amendments to the Constitution. The power of 
the President of the United States, is limited, therefore, by 
the terms of the Constitution. He can exercise no authori- 
ty beyond its letter and its spirit. We must look to that 
instrument, then, for his authority to exercise tiiis power. 

Is this power, specially delegated to him by the Con- 
stitution? It is believed that it is not. All the powers of 
the President are there defined, but this is not of the num- 
ber. The «juestion then remains to be answered, is it con- 
ferred upon him by implication, as incidental and tx'cessary 
to the exercise of some power, specially delegated by that 
instrument? If it is implied from any provision of the con- 
stitution, it is in that clause, constituting him (Command- 
er in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, 
and he derives it from military usage. In England, the 



S9 

K.\ng is Commander in Chief of the military force of his 
kingdom, not constituted such by law, but by right inhe- 
I'cnt in the crown. By the same right he can appoint all 
his oflicers, and can dismiss them at his pU>asure, for they 
hold their appointments at his will. But if the king con- 
sjiitute another Commander in Chief, this power does not 
necessaiily follow; for his authority is derived from the 
King, and he can only exercise the powers that arc given 
him. The President of the United States possesses no 
powers inlierent to his station, which he can exercise as 
Commander in Chief of the military force of the United 
States, for he is created such by law. His power is all con- 
ferred, and therefore limited. He cannot appoint Military 
officers, but by and with the advice and consent of the Se- 
nate. It is a rule that needs no illustration, that one can- 
not do by himself, what he can only perform in conjunction 
with another. And it would be strange, if the reverse of 
the rule was n<»t equally true : that one cannot ^indoJ what 
can only be performed in concurrence with another. If it 
is not so, it involves this absurdity, that a subordinate power^ 
may annul the authority of its superior. The President and 
Senate of the United States, acting in conjunction, are this 
superior power, constituted such by law : Can the Presi- 
dent alone, by an expression of his will, annul their acts, 
any more than he can repeal a law of Congress ? If he can 
dismiss an officer, he cannot fill the vacancy, without the 
consent of the Senate. If he can dismiss one Commission- 
ed Officer of the Army or Navy, at his pleasure, he can dis- 
miss ten, and if ten, by the same authority he may disband 
your Army, and dismantle your Navy. He cannot create 
a military force; Congress alone has power to do that. Has 
he the power to destroy it, and defeat the objects of the law ? 
Is such a power necessary to the exercise of any authority 
delegated to him by the Constitution, either directly or in- 
directly? It is believed not. But, on the contrary, so far 
as the Constitution and Laws of the United States, contain 
an expression upon this subject, every avenue to tlie exer- 
cise of such a power, by the President, seems to be guarded. 
M 



90 

Tlie pica of necessity is at once silenced, for Congress have 
provided, by positive enactments, for the punishment of 
every military offence, by a trial and sentence of a Court 
Martial, which tlie wisdom of that body, and the greatest 
military experience of the country and of the age, deemed 
necessary to notice. If Congress had considered, that 
there was any other, or more summary mode of punish- 
ment, than that provided in the Rules and Articles enacted 
for the government of the Army and Navy, would they not 
have left some case for its infliction ? If they had deemed 
it necessary or expedient, that the President should exer- 
cise this power, would the military code have contained no 
proviso, alluding to it, acknowledging its existence? 

The acts of the old Congress of November, 1775, origi- 
nating the Naval establishment of the United States, enact- 
ed rules and orders for the government of the Navy, and 
since the adoption of the pi'esent Cojjstitution. by the acts 
of Congress of April, 1 800, the same rules and articles, with 
such improvements as experience seemed to require, were 
enacted into a law of the United States. The original rules 
and orders, which were in force when my case occurred, 
gave no power to the President to dismiss an Officer with- 
out a trial; but on the contrary, provided in every case, 
for a trial by a Court Martial. The eighth section of 
the First Aiticlc of the Constitution, paragraphs twelve 
and thirteen, gives to Congress alone the power ^'' to provide 
and maintain aJ^avij^^ and '*to make rules for the govern- 
ment and regulation of the land and naval forces." The 
punishment of offences committed, by the land and naval 
forces, is a substantive part of tiie power here delegated to 
Congress by the Constitution. It is the principal end and 
object of the provision. Their jurisdiction over the whole 
matter is exclusive, consequently, no discretionary power is 
vested in the President, in relation to it. Tlie investing of 
Congress with this power, divests it from all others. 

In pursuance with this provision of the Constitution, 
the rules and articles for the government of t!ie K ivy, 
that were in force, when the Constitiition was adopted, 
were continued and enforced, and Congress have, by 



91 

a solemn enactment, peiforincd tlieir whole duty un- 
der the Constitution, by making the provision required. 
And what does the law of Congress enact? Why that all 
military offences, known to the law, shall he tried by a 
Court Martial, and punished accoi-ding to tlieir sentence. 
Congress have left nothing for the President to do upon this 
subject, but to use the authority vested in him by the Con- 
stitution, to bring the offender to trial, in due form of law, 
and to act upon the sentence of the Court. The Consti- 
tution left him no power, but on the contrary, disarmed 
liim of all authority, either in express terms, or by neces- 
sary implication, by conferring the whole of that authori- 
ty upon another tribunal. In the power given to Congress, 
by the Constitution, to ])rovide for the government of the 
land and naval forces, is included that of punishing offen- 
ces against the laws enacted for that purpose. The Con- 
stitution has given this power exdusively to Congress; con- 
sequently, no part of it is vested in another. Congress 
have exercised that power, and have provided by law, in 
what way an officer shall be dismissed from the service, 
which is tlie severest punishment known to the law; conse- 
quently, no concurrent power is vested in the President to 
dismiss an officer and inffict that punishment, contrary to 
the provisions of that law. It seems impossible, therefore, 
to avoid the conclusion, that the President does not possess 
the power contended for. 

Besides, the acLof Congress providing for a naval ar- 
mament, direct, that the Commissioned officers shall be 
appointed, and commissioned, as other officers of the Uni- 
ted States are; that is, appointed by the President with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, and Commissioned by 
the President. These acts of Congress, also, give the 
President the power, to appoint all warrant officers without 
the concurrence of the Senate, making the distinction be- 
tween such officers as were to be appointed, and to hold their 
appointments, under the. law, and such inferior officers as 
were intended to be appointed, and to hold their a])point- 
ments, at the pleasure of the President. The same distinction 
is also to be observed, in the appointment of other officers 



provided tor by law. The act of Congress providing for 
an executive department of Foreign affairs, for example, 
authorizes the President to appoint the Secretary, whose 
duties are prescribed by the act, and who, in the execu- 
tion of his duty, is to conform, exclusively, to the will of 
the President. He is tjje organ by whom that will is com- 
municated. It is proper therefore, that he should h(dd his 
appointment at tlio pleasure of the President, and subject 
to his revocation; for tljc acts of this ollicer can not be ex- 
amined elsewhere. 

It has been said, that this power has been conceded, and 
that the Commission of every officer contains such an ex- 
pression. But the Commission is no part of the appoint- 
ment, nor is it necessary to the officer to entitle him to the 
office. It neither adds to, or diminishes the rights and 
powers conferred by tiie appointment, but is only evidence, 
that the appointment has been made. This point has been 
settled by the Supreme Court of tiio United States, in 
the case of Maybury against Madison. It is evidenced 
too, by the Constitution, for the acts to appoint to offi- 
ce, and to commission the person appointed, arc dis- 
tinct provisions, they are not one and the same act. This 
distinction is apparent; for the second section of the second 
article of the constitution, authorizes Congress to vest by 
law, the appointment of certain inferior officers, in the 
President alone, the heads of Departments, or in the Courts 
of Law, and requiring the President to Commission the 
officers so appointed; evidently shevving,%iatto appoint and 
commission are distinct acts. Wiien the President has 
nominated, and the Senate have concurred in the nomina- 
tion, tlie appointment is complete, and the President has no 
power over the officer, unless he is removable at his will. 
AViiere an officer is removable at the will of the President, 
the appointment is of little concern, because the act is at 
any time revocable. Hut the Supreme Court have also 
decided, in the case before mentioned, *«thatwhen the offi. 
cer is not removable at tlio will of the Executive, the ap- 
pointment is 7iot revocable^ and cannot be annulled. It has 
conferred legal rights, which cainiot be resumed" When 



93 - 

the appointment has been made, the power of the Presi- 
dent over the office ceases, \vl)en, by law, the «»iU' er is 
not removable at his pleasin^e. TIjc rii^ht to the otRcc is 
absolutely and unconditionally vested in the officer appoint- 
ed, and tlie Supreme Court have well said, that our Gov- 
ernment would cease to be a Government of laws, if there 
was no remedy for the violation of a vested right. 

It is evident that the constitution, the laws ofcon.qress, 
as well as the supreme court, in their adjudications upon 
this subject, contemplate, only that class of officers^ as lia- 
ble to be thus removed, whom the President alone has the 
power to appoint. Iftiiis is not so, where is the advan- 
tage of making a distinction in the power to appoint, if 
the executive alone may dismiss them all at his will. The 
presumption is as strong, that he will make judicious ap- 
pointments, as it is, that he will always exercise a wise 
and sound discretion in removals from office. But the Su- 
preme Court have also decided, that if an officer, is not by 
law removable at the will of the Presu/e?if, the rights he has 
acquired under his appointment, are protected by the law, 
and cannot be extinguished by executive authority. The 
only enquiry, then, that seems necessary, to settle the 
whole of this question, is — are commissioned officers of the 
Array and Navy appointed, to hold their appointments at 
the will of the President? It is humbly conceived, that they 
are not. The object of the constitution, in providing for 
their appointment by the President and Senate, seems to 
be, to secure suitable officers in the service; to require the 
combined information and judgment of the President and 
Senate, upon their qualifications, and to guard against the 
influence of favoritism and the use of intrigue which might 
be resorted to, if their appointments were left to the exe- 
cutive alone. The object of the laws of congress, provid- 
ing for the military establishments of the country, certainly 
have contemplated permanent establishments; co-extensive 
with the demands of the country, and adequate to the ser- 
vice contemplated to he performed. To accomplish these 
objects, knowledge and experience in military science, na- 



94 

val tactics, and seamanship, are indispensible rccjuisites. In 
the creation of a naval force, these qualifications could not 
have been expected to be possessed by the officers, in an 
emminent degree, when first appointed. They must neces- 
sarily be acquired afterwards. A permanancy in office 
then was contemplated, and was the object of the constitu- 
tion and the laws. The purpose of the law was, that the 
appointment should continue as long as the service, for 
which it was made, was to be performed; for the longer 
the officer continued in the discharge of his duty, the more 
experience he would acquire, and the more able he would 
be to serve his country. When an appointment was made, 
therefore, in pursuance of the law, it was as permanent as 
the law itself, and the life and ability of the officer to 
discharge his duty. It was subject to the provisions of 
the law relating to it, and to nothing else. The moment 
an officer of the land or naval forces, was duly appoint- 
ed, his military conduct became subject to the rules and ar- 
ticles, enacted for the government of the army or navy. 
He was liable to be punished as those rules and articles 
prescribed, and in no other way. He was subject to no 
other tribunal, than the one there provided; and to which, 
jurisdiction of his case, is there given. Whatever terms 
may be inserted in his commission, cannot alter the effect of 
law, under and by virtue of which, he holds his appoint- 
ment. The moment the appointment is made, all the rights 
and immunities of the office, vest in the officer, to the full 
extent of the purpose, and object of the law. The com- 
mission being evidence, only, that the appointment was 
made, is good to prove that fact, and for nothing more. 
It cannot restrict or limit the authority, derived under the 
appointment. When the appointment was confirmed 
by the senate, it was complete; and it is not in the power 
of the president, to alter its terms, by any expressions in 
the instrument, which is merely evidence, that the apj)oint- 
ment was made. Suppose an alien to be naturalized, un- 
der the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the 
privileges and immunities of a native born citizen. His 



05 

civil rights are vested hi him, the moment he has complied 
with the provisions of the law. But suppose the certifi- 
cate of his naturalization, which is furnished him, as evi- 
dence of that fact, should contain some provision, not known 
to the law, restricting his privileges, or subjecting them 
to forfeiture altogether, and he should accept of it upon 
those terms. Would that deprive him of the rights of ci- 
tizenship? No one will contend, it is believed that it 
would. The right was vested and could not be restrained 
by any concession, or by any provisions not contained in 
the lawj for the public are interested that the law should 
have its full effect. 

From a full examination of this subject, therefore, it is 
evident, that Commissioned Officers of the Army or Navy, 
do not hold their appointments at the pleasure of the Pres- 
ident; consequently, are not liable to he removed at his will. 
That they do hold their appointments by special provisions 
of law; consequently, can only be removed in the way the 
law has prescribed, by sentence of a Court Martial. Hence 
1 arrive at the following conclusion; that the right to dis- 
miss an Officer, without a trial, is not an incident of sover- 
eignty, essential to the exercise of Executive authority, 
not otherwise provided for by law, and therefore, necessa- 
rily vested in the President of the United States; because, 
the Constitution has provided for it, and it is not necessary 
that he should exercise the power. That the power is not 
delegated to him, by the Constitution, but on the contrary, 
is vested, cxclusiveUj, in Congress, and by Congress, has 
been exercised. It is not vested in him by necessary im- 
plication; because no power can be im})Iied, in opposition 
to a positive provision of law. If this is a fair view of 
tfiis subject, the President never did possess the power, to 
dismiss me from the service, without a trial. Of the sound- 
ness and accuracy of my arguments and opinions, the pub- 
lic will decide. It is a subject that cannot suffer by exami- 
nation. If I am correct, I may render some service to my 
country, by raising this question. If I am not, it only re- 



96 

mains for some abler man than myself, to refute my argu- 
ments, and convince the ])uhlic that I am wrong*. I sliall 
yield to conviction as cheerfully as any man, when satis- 
fied that I am in error. 

But Mr. Southard alle,2;es, that I am ^*entirelij without 
claim to restoration^ even if all my facts and arguments be 
sound.^* Because, on the 3d of March, 1801, an act was 
passed by Congress providing for a Naval peace estab- 
lis'.iment, and for other purposes; the 3d Section of which, 
provides, that the President of the United States retain in 
the Navy service, in time of peace, nine Captains, thir- 
ty-six Lieutenants, &c. kc. and is authorized to discharge 
all the other officers, and this law he says, **was shortly 
afterxvards executed.''^ That there were, at the time, twen- 
ty-eigiit Captains in the Navy, in the full exercise and en- 
joyment of their Commissions, That the prescribed num- 
ber, were retained, and the rest, whatever claims they had 
on public confidence, or on public gratitude, were obliged 
to become private citizens. Hence he observes, no one 
who was not retained, could be a Captain in the United 
States Naval service. He then concludes, that as I was 
not of the number, that whatever may have been my 
previous situation, my subsequent is irreversibly defined by 
the operation of that law. 

From an examination of this act, and the course of pro- 
ceeditig under its provisions, it may not be found quite so 
conclusive upon this subject, perhaps, as Mr. Southard 
seems to suppose. And in order to bring this point fair- 
ly before the public, it will be necessary for me to digress, 
a little, from my usual mode of replying to this report, in 
order to introduce some evidence of what has been done 
under this law, and how much respect is justly due to the 
Records of the Navy Department. By reference to the 
Naval Chronicle, pages 180, and 181, it will be seen, that 
the act of the 3d of March 1801. ^^authori'^ed the Fresi- 
dent, when ever the situation o^' public affairs should, in Ms 
opinion^ render it expedient, to cause to be sold, all or any of 
the ships or vessels belonging to the JSTavy, except the Fri- 



'^7 

gales, United States, CoNSTiTUTioy, President, 
Chesapeake, Philadelphia, Constellation, Con- 
gress, New-Youk, Boston, Essex, Adams, John Adamsj 
and the General Greene, and directed the President to 
retain in service, nine Captains, thirty-six Lieu- 
tenants, AND ONE hundred AND FIFTY MlDSHIPMENj 

and authorlz,ed him to discharge all the other officers in the 
^avy service of the United States. But the Naval Chroni- 
cle observes, lortimately, the law did not direct the dis^' 
charge of all the officers, excepting a certain number of 
captains, lieutenants, and midshipmen,- otherwise, not a 
single ship could have been sent to sea. Fortunately too, 
the President, in exercising the powers with which he was 
clothed by this act, looked rather to its spirit than its let- 
ter, and gave its provisions a practical construction, which 
supplied its defects, and reconciled its incongruities. 

We find also from the Chromcle,page 375, the following list of Captains were 
in the service bifore the laiu q/"1801. — 

Captains— John Barry, Samuel Nicholson, Silas Tal- 
bot, Richard Dale, Thomas Truxtun, James Sever, Ste- 
phen Decatur, Christopher R. Perry, Richard V. Morris, 
Alexander Murray, Daniel M^Niell, Thomas Tingey, Pat» 
rick Fletcher; George Cross, Samuel Barron, Moses 
Brown, Moses Tryon, Richard Derby, George Little, John 
Rodgers, Edward Preble, John Mullowny, James Barron, 
Thomas Baker, Henry Geddes, Thomas Robinson, Wil- 
liam Bainbridge, Hugh G. Campbell. 

We also find from the same authority. Page 389, which 
is a history of the Navy, compiled from the records of the 
Department, shewing what actually was done, as well, 
as what was sometimes intended, that notwithstanding the 
law of 1801, the following list of officers were retained on 
the peace establishment under that law. 

Captains — John Barry, Samuel Nicholson, Richard 
Bale, Thomas Truxtun, Richard V. Morris, Alex. Mur- 
ray, Samuel Barron, John Rodgers, Edward Preble, James 
N 



98 

Barron, William Bainbridge, Hugh G. Campbell, Thomas 
Tingey. 

Here we find, that the Naval Peace Establishment never 
was reduced to Nine Captains, as Mr. Southard asserts, 
and if the records of the Department are entitled to any 
credit, Ihey also prove the same thing. As Mr. Southard 
seemed to think, that this point was irreversibly conclusive 
against me, it became necessary for me to produce all the 
evidence I could obtain, upon this branch of the subject, to 
repel his opinion. It became necessary, in another point 
of view also; for Mr. Southard having placed so much re- 
liance upon the records of the Department, to sustain his 
inferences, in justification of the fontlurt of Mr. Stoddert, 
it was expedient I should prove, that those records have been 
so made and kept, that they are not entitled to the highest 
degree of credit. The most conclusive evidence of this fact, 
that I could produce, was the record itself, compared with 
other testimony. Hence, on the 11th of May, 1825, I ad- 
dressed a Note to the Secretary of the Navy, which pro- 
duced the following results. 

May 11th, 1825. 
Sir — By referring to your report, I find it necessary to 
request of you, official copies of the dismission of Captain 
John Rodgers, and of his reappointment to the Navy of the 
United States, as documents which are intimately connec- 
ted with my case; especially as one part of your report is 
predicated upon the law of 1801. 

I have the honour to be, with respect, 

Your obedient servant, 
ISAAC PHILLIPS. 
Hon. Samuel L. Southard. 

Navy Depaiitment, May 14th, 1825. 
SIR — Yovir letter of the 11th inst. was duly received. 
As I do not perceive the pr9priety of sending copies of the records 
you ask for, in the case of Captain John Rodgers, 1 do not enclose them. 

I am respectfully, Sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

SAM'L L. SOUTHARD 
Isaac Phillips, Esq. Baltimore, 



9Q 

BALTIMORE, 1 6th Mav, 1825. 
Sir — Your letter of the I4th inst. declining to senil inea 
copy <.'f the record in the case of Captain John Rodgers, 
has been duly received. Am I to consider this as a refu- 
sal to supply me with a copy of the record which I request- 
ed? In the mean time, as my case has been acted upon by 
yourself and the President of the United States, will you 
have the goodness to forward my papers to me, at as early 
a day as is practicable? 

I have the honour to be, Sir, your very 
obedient and humble servant, 

ISAAC PHILLIPS. 
Hon. Samuel L. Southard, Sec. Navy. 

Navy Dti-AUTMENT, 27th May, 1825. 
SIR — I return herewith the original papers, presented by you, in sup- 
port of your application, to be reinstated in your rank in the Navy. 

In a few days, you -will receive un unswci- to that part of your letter- of the 
\Qth iiiBt. -which relates to Captain Rodgers. 

I am, respectfully, &c. 
SAM'L L. SOUTHARD. 
Isaac Phillips, Esq. Baltimore. 

Navt Depahtment, June 13th, 1825. 

Sitt — In conformity with the request contained in your letter of the 16th 
ult. I enclose you copies of three letters, which relate to the operation 
of the law of 3rd March, 1801, upon Captain John Rodgers. They are all 
the letters which can be found in the department on that subject. 

You will readily perceive a contradiction between that of 1 1th oi June, 
1801, and that of the 22nd of October, in the same year. 

It is proper for me to apprise you, that I have a letter from the then 
Secretary of the Navy, which declares that the letter of the 22nd Octo- 
ber, 1801, was not sent; nor has he, (to the knowledge of the writer,) 
ever had the slightest intimation of the existence of such a letter on the 
records of the Navy Department, or the apparent, (not real,) disposition 
of the Governm,ent thereby indicated. 

Under these circumstances it may, perhaps, be questioned, whether it 
be proper to send to you a copy of that letter, but as it is to be found on 
the records of the department, I think it best not to withhold the copy, 
but to apprise you of the facts connected with it. 

I am very respectfully, 

Sir, your most obedient servant, 
SAMUEL L. SOUTHARD. 

Isaac Phillips, Esquire, Baltimore. 



100 

Navy Depautment, 11th June, 181 Q, 
To Captain Thomas Truxtun — 

Your letter expressing a wish to be informed, as early as possible, of 
the new arrangement of the officers, retained in the Navy on the Peace 
Establishment, has been received. The arrangements of the Lieutenants 
are not yet completed, that of the Captains, numbered agreeably to rank, 
is as follows; 
No. 1, John Barry, No, 6, Samuel Barron, 

2, Samuel Nicholson, 7, lohn Rodgers, 

3, Silas Talbot, 8, Edwanl Preble, 

4, Richard Dale, 9, James Barron, 

5, Thomas Truxtun, lu, William Bainbridge. 

You will observe that one Captain is retained more than the Law actu- 
ally authorizes; this was owing to a desire that the Commodore's ship 
might have a captain. It is hoped that Congress will not only approve 
of this measure, at the next session, but it is expected another captain 
will be called into service for the commander's ship of the squadron in- 
tended to sail in January or February next. 

The rant of the respective Captains being now permanently arranged 
it is expected that all will serve harmoniously with, and under each other, 
when they shall be called into actual service. The number for duty is 
too few, to admit of Gentlemen, who have heretofore disputed rank, to be 
kept separate. 

There are yet a number of very respectable gentleman -who have commanded 
the shi''s of -war of the United States, and not removed, that it is hoped Con- 
gress may, at their next session, choose to callinto service. 

Your pay and rations will be settled as usual up to the 1st day of July 
next, from that period, you will, as the law directs, he on half pay until 
palled into actual service. 

I am, &c. 
(Signed.) HENRY nEARBORN. 

I certify the foregoing to be a true copy from the records of this De- 
partment, 

CHARLES HAY, Chief Clerk. 

Navy DiPABTMENT, 22d Oct'r. 180L 
Captjiins Hugh G. Campbell, Philadelphia, 7 
John Rodgers, Baltimore. 5 

Under the provisions of the Statute, entitled, "An Act providing for a 
Naval Peace Establishment, and for other purposes," the President has 
deemed it necessary to reduce the Captains to the prescribed number 
Nine. And in the discharge of this duty, he has the unhappiness to find 
that, highly as he regards your merits, he cannot retain you in Commis- 
sion, consistently with the principles of selection, that have been adopted. 
You will, I trust, be duly sensible, how very painful it is to me, to make 
you this unpleasant communication; and be persuaded. Sir, my sensibility 
on the occasion is greatly increased, by considerations resulting from a 
personal knowledge of your worth. 



101 

Von will be pleased to transmit to the Accountant of the Navy, a state, 
ment of your account, calculated up to the 1st of November, including 
four months' extra pay, who will attend to its adjustment, and remit the 
balance that may be found due you, agreeably to any order you may give 
him. 

(Signed,) ROBERT SMITH. 

I certify the foregoing to be a true copy, from the Records of this De 
partment. 

CHA'S HAY, Chief Clerk. 

Navy Department, 13th June, 1825. 

Navy Di:PAiiTE3ST,25th August, 1802. 
Captain John Rodgers, Baltimore. 

You will immediately repair to Washington, and take the command of 
•he John Adams. With much respect, 

1 have the honor to be. Sir, 
Your obedient Ser\'ant, 
(Signed,) ROBERT SMITH. 

I certify the above to be a true copy, from the Records of this Depart- 
ment. 

CHA'S HAY, Chief Clerk. 

BALTIMORE, 3rd August, 1825. 
Sir — I perceive by an extract from the Register of the 
Navy Department, (with which I have been furnished) mar- 
ked A, that it is observed, that '*by the record of Letters re- 
ceived he returned his Commission to the J^avy Department,''^ 
speaking of me. — Will you have the goodness to send me 
copies of the original Letters there referred to, or any 
others of the same import, if any such letters are in exist- 
ence; if not, be so good as to inform me from whom they 
were received, and what has become of them. — 
Be pleased to send me copies of the recorded letters, 
hav e the honour to be. 

With great respect, 
Your most obedient servant, 
ISAAC PHILLIPS^ 
Hon. Samuel L. Southard, 

Sec. Navy, Washington, 



BALTIMORE, AugUSt 6tll, 1825. 

Sir — Since my return from the eastward, I was put in 
possession of your favour of 13th June last, relative to 
the operation of the law of 3rd March 1801 , upon Captain 
John Rodgers.— In which you are pleased to remark, that 
*'It is proper for me to apprise you, that I have a letter 
from the then Secretary of the Navy, which declares that 
the letter of 22nd October was not sent,'* Will you be 
pleased to favour me with a copy of the Letter from the 
Secretary of the Navy, above alluded to? 
I have the honour to be. 

With great respect. 
Your most obedient servant, 
ISAAC PHILLIPS. 
Hon. Samuel L. Southard, 

Sec. Navy, Washington. 

Navy Department, 18th August, 1825. 
SIR— In compliance with the request contained in your letter otthe 6th 
inst. I enclose a copy of the letter from the Hon. Robert Smith, together 
with copy of a subsequent letter, received from him. 

Being thus informed of the facts in this case, it is hoped you will feel no 
inclination, in any way, to present it to the public consideration, ■which 
could not possibly be useful to yourself ^ and only culctdated to create inconvc' 
mence to others. 

I am, respectfully, &c. 

SAAl'L. L. SOUTHARD. 
Isaac Phillips, Esq. Baltimore. 

Baltimore, June 6th, 1825. 
Sir — In reply to your communication of the 27th ult. I have the honor 
to inform you, that you were perfectly correct in the presumption, therein 
expressed, that the letter of the 22nd October, 1801, had not been sent to 
Captain Rodgers; nor has he, to my knowledge, ever had the slightest in- 
timation of the existence of such a letter on the records of the Navy De- 
partment, or of the apparent (not real) disposition of the government 
thereby indicaled. 

To my absence from home you will be pleased to attribute the delay of 
this answer. 

The enclosed copies agreeably to your request are herewith returned- 

Respectfully, 
(Signed.) R. SMITH, 

Honourable Samuel L. Southard. 



103 

BAtTiMoni, Aug. 13, 1825. 
Sin— From your letter of the 9tli it appears that Captai/i PldUipa has 
ibtaiiied some intimation of the letter of the Ziml October, 1801. This is great- 
ly to be regretted, as it is an affair of extreme delicacy in relation, not only 
to Commodore llodgers, but to the government. That letter was ojie of 
the incidents of the course of poUcij of the then administration— a policy that 
had for its object the retaining under the act of March 1801, as many of 
the good officers of the Navy as from its most LinEiiAL interpretation could 
with propriety be effected. The statute ivas not considered imperative as to 
time. The President, it was believed, was required to exercise the au- 
thority of reducing the number of officers only ivhen he, from time to time, 
should deem it expedimt. This reasonable and legitimate construction afford- 
ed time to ascertain the comparative merits of the several officers, and it 
thus enabled him to select, as he did, a corps of heroes, whose brilliant 
achievements have abundantly gratified the lofty ambition of the Amer- 
ican people. Under the influence of this laudible policy, the letter of 
the 22nd October, 1801, was not to have been transmitted to Captaiji Rodg. 
erg but in the event of a certain state of things then not likely to happen, 
and which, in fact, never did happen. It of couise was one of those ^ovej-w- 
ment secrets the promulgation of which could be attended with no benefit 
what ever to the ccmmunity. Had this letter been sent, it would ipso facto, 
have disimssed Rodgers from the navyof the United States, and after such 
dismission, had it taken place, the President ivoidd not, ten months there- 
after, have had the po~i<er to order him, as he did, to Washington to take the 
command of the John Adams. It is obvious to every understanding, that 
an officer dismissed from the service cannot be restored to his former rank 
by the mere authority of the President. The letter, then, to Rodgers of the 
25th August, 1 802, ordering him to take the command of the John Adams 
affords demonstrative proof that he had not been dismissed from the Navy, 
that is, that the letter of the 22nd October, 1801 , had not been sait to him: 
Confident as I am in the correctnes of ray statement of this case, yet it 
iS possible, but not at all probable, that my memory, after such a lapse of 
time, may have tailed me, occupied as I have been since that distant peri- 
od, in such multifarious matters, there may, for ought I know, have been 
effased from my mind, traces of this affair, which might otherwise have aid- 
ed my recollection. But from my present review of the case in all its re- 
lations, I cannot from any circumstance in my recollection, bring myself to 
believe — that the letter of the 22nd October 1801 , was ever sent to Captain 
Rodgers. 

Under my impression of the very delicate character of the letter of the 
22nd October, 1801. I cannot consistently signify my approbation of any 
step, that may, directly or indirectly, lead to its publication, and on this 
ground, it appears to me, not proper for me to consent to the sending to 
Captain Phillips of a copy of my note to you of the 6th June last, which* 
bringing Into view, as it does, that letter, could not fail eventually to in- 
duce its publication. If however, from coincidence of circumstances you 
may have considered it expedient to let Capt.ain Phillips have a copy ot 
the letter of October 1801, I see no objection to your furnishing him also 



101 

with a copy of iny note to you accompanied, it'vcu should deem it neces- 
sary, with a transcript of tliis letter. 

With great respect, 

Your obedient servant, 
H. SMITH. 
Honourable Samuel L. Southard, Washington.; 

BALTIMORE, 19th Allglist, 1825. 

Sir — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt ol 
your communication of the 18th inst. enclosing copies of 
two letters from R. Smith, Esq. of June 6th and August 
13th, 1825. 

I have noticed the intimation in the closing paragraph 
of your letter, expressing a hope that they are not for pub- 
lic consideration, because they may produce inconvenience 
to others. 

In explanation of my motive for requesting copies of 
the numerous documents with which you have so obligingly 
furnished me, of the import of which, I was as well infor- 
med before I received them as I am nowj I have to state, 
that in consequence of my injuries being originally of a 
public character, having been recently presented to the 
public under aggravated circumstances, I conceive tljat 
my justification should be equally public, or my redress 
will be inadequate to the wrongs I have sustained. For this 
purpose, I ought, and have obtained, the documents. 

I assure you Sir, that if, in the course which 1 have been 
compcllod to take I shall cause inconvenience to any one, 
it will be to me a subject of sincere regret. But if in the 
justification of myself, it cannot be avoided, the fault is 
not mine: it must rest with those, who have compelled me 
to this course. 

If the documents furnish any evidence of precedents, to 
which I am compelled to refer, they have become neces- 
sary to meet the objections to my application for redress, 
which are contained in your report, and which has called 
them into notice. 

My object has never been concealed. I have always 
rnnceived myself deeply injured, in public estimatio*)^ my 



105 

great object has been to lay my whole conduct, in this 
affair, before the public. For the consequences, I am not 
answerable. I take, however, this opportunity of repeat- 
ing, that nothing is more remote from my wisli or inten- 
tion, in the prosecution of my claim, than to be the cause 
of inconvenience, to any individual. 

Be pleased, Sir, to accept my acknowledgments, for the 
very obliging manner in which you have acceded to my 
repeated applications, for copies of documents from your 
Department, and the assurance, that I am with very great 
respect, Sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

ISAAC PEILLIPS. 

Hon. S. L. Southard, Sec. Navy. 

The record here produced, the result of the preceding 
correspondence, as well as tlie correspondence itself, jjroves, 
pretty conclusively, what respect the record is entitled to; in 
what manner it has been made to bear its present appear- 
ance, and why it was so reluctantly furnisiied to me. 1 was 
aware of the facts it contained, and in my letter of the 1 1th of 
May, I gave the reason for requiring the documents. In 
the letter of iMr. Southard, of the 14th May, in reply to my 
request, he did not see the propriety of sending the record; 
but it is pretty evident, that he began to perceive, that the 
record would not help his report. If he had not, why did 
he not send it willingly? It is true, if he had not sent it, I 
was prepared to prove wliat it contained, and his refusal 
would have placed me in a situation, to have done so with pro- 
priety, and which is pretty plainly intimated in my letter of 
the 16th of May. But it is worthy of remark, that Mr. 
Southard did not venture to furnish tliis record, until he 
had opened a correspondence with the former Secretary, 
Mr. Smith, As soon as the letter of Mr. Sinith was receiv- 
ed, giving his opinion, corresponding with Mr. Southard's 
ingenious suggestion, that Mr. Rodgers never received his 
letter of dismissal, although it rvas found upon record; and 
which opinion seemed to straighten the crooked rvays of the 

o 



106 

department, all difficulty vanished. Itis exultingly sentto 
me, with a proviso, that is supposed to be conclusive, and 
special care is taken to remind me of the fact. But sup- 
pose Captain Rodgers did not receive this letter of dismis- 
sal, that appears upon record, as Mr. Smith alleges ; will 
proof of that fact support the credit of the records? Mr. 
Southar'd says, my letter of dismissal is recorded, and inas- 
much as it is, he feels bound to believe the records, in op- 
position to all the evidence that is offered to impeach their 
credit. Now, here is a letter recorded, also, dismissing 
Captain Rodgers from the service, yet he is willing to seize 
upon the slightest presumption^ to contradict the record, and 
make it appear tiiat it is false. Is not the evidence as 
strong and conclusive, from the records of the Depart- 
ment, that Captain Rodgers received his letter of dismis- 
sal, which is there recorded, as it is that I received the let- 
ter of dismissal, that is recorded? I have produced three 
witnesses to prove, on oath, that the recoi-d is false, as re- 
gards the letter of dismissal, purporting to have been sent 
to me; and yet Mr. Southard does not believe us, because 
our evidence contradicts this sacred record. But now, he 
makes no difficulty, in a similar case exactly; the record 
of a letter of dismissal of an officer, in relying upon the 
opinion of one witness, not expressed under oath, as con- 
clusive and satisfactory proof, that the record is false. 
Suppose the record is wrong, as he wishes to make it ap- 
pear; is it not as likely to be wrong in other particulars? If 
the record is falsified in one case, it is not entitled to credit 
in any other; consequently, it furnishes no reason why it 
should be relied upon, against me. 

I have no wish to interfere with Captain Rodgers, and 
I should regret, if in defending myself, I should produce 
him any inconvenience. The Secretary seems to apprehend 
something of this sort, and begs my forbearance. I have 
a high regard for Captain Rodgers as an officer and a man, 
and have nothing to do with his case, further than to rely 
upon it as a precedent; which I think,defeats Mr. Southard's 
conclusive reliance upon the law of 1801, against my ap- 



107 

plication. It is not my fault, that I am compelled to rely 
upon this precedent; but Mr. Southard ought to have 
known, that by the construction put upon the law of 1801, 
the navy never was reduced^ according to its provi- 
sions. Kveu tlie record of the Department shews, that ten 
Captains were retained under that law, on the llih of June 
1801, and that others xuere not discharged^ in the hope that it 
would not be necessary. If the President could^retain any 
number more than nine, the law did not necessarilydismiss 
me. He did retain thirteen, and by the terms of the law, 
he was at liberty to exercise his own discretion, whether to 
discharge the rest or not. This was the construction the 
President put upon the law, and by this he was governed. 
The Naval Chronicle proves this, and the record of the de- 
partment furnished me by Mr. Southard, so far as its cred- 
it ^oes, proves it likewise. But I was dismissed the service 
before the passage of this law; I was not on the roll of the 
Navy at the time the reduction took place, if ever it was 
made. I was not in the view of congress when the law was 
passed, nor of the President when it was partially acted 
upon; consequently I could not be effected by its provisions. 
Besides, the law did not necessarily require the dismissal 
of all the Captains but nine, and if the President found room 
to retain any one more than that number, under the law, 
there was room for me, and the law did not necessarily 
discharge me. There were more retained under it, and no 
one so retained could say that his retention was more 
strongly sanctioned by the law than another. If the law 
necessarily discharged all but nine, which among the num- 
ber retained, 1 would like to know, is legally in tlie service? 
"Who can now decide, who are the supernumeries? The 
construction put upon the act of 1801, by the President, 
proves, that he considered the law entirely provisional, and 
not imperative. Suppose the President in the exercise of 
his discretion under this law, had not dismissed any of the 
officers. Would they not all have remained in the service? 
If the President could exercise any discretion at all, upon 



108 

this subject, all the officers he did not actually dismisSj 
certainly lemained in the service. He did not dismiss me, 
under tliis law, ( onsequentiy, if 1 had any claim to be res- 
tored before, that claim remained; for it was not impaired 
by the law, or the acts of the President. 

But if I was dismissed by legal and competent authori- 
ty, as Mr. Southard finally concludes I was, liad not the 
President the same power to restore me, that he had Cap- 
tain Rodj^ers? The records of the Department prove 
that Captain Rodgers was dismissed, under the law of 1 801; 
and it will not be contended, I suppose, that if the 
President actually dismi sed an officer under that law, but 
that such dismissal would be legal. The records also 
prove that Captain Campbell was dismissed, as appears 
by the letter of Mr. Smith of the 22nd of October, 1801; 
and yet, he remained in the service until his death. What 
faith then is to be attached to the records which are con- 
tradicted by such well known facts? The letter of Mr. Sec- 
rotary Smith, of the 25th of August, 1 802, called Captain 
Rodgers into the service, in which he has ever since con- 
tinut'c!, without any new appointment. If he could be ^e- 
g^lly railed into the service, in this way, after having 
been legally dismissed; why, I would like to know, does 
not the President possess the same power, to call me again 
into the service, who have been illegally dismissed? Or if 
Captain Rodgers was dismissed under the law of 1801, 
and could be called into the service again in the manner he 
has been, at the will of the Scretary, or of the President; 
has not the President the same power in the case of anoth- 
er^ His dismission was just, tlie law required it; yet, he 
was recalled into the service, by a simple order of the 
Secretary of the Navy. If my dismissal was legal, being 
by legal authority; yet if it was uvjust, has not the Presi- 
dent the same power to reinstate me? If he has not, how 
does it liai)i)en that such a power has been exercised? Or 
is t!»e record false in this particular too? But Mr. South- 
ard is ready with a presumption, that seems to set all 
things right; and Mr. Smith gives him full credit for being 



109 

• 

correct in his intimations. The letter of dismissal was 
never sent to Captain Roilgers, say these Gentlemen, the 
record to the contrary notwithstanding. The record, then 
is proved, by Mr. Southard's presumption^ confij-med by 
Mr. Smith's opinion, to be false. Now I thank the Gentle- 
men for aiding me to prove, that no reliance ought to be 
placed upon the records of the Navy Department, in es- 
tablisliing any fact, not supported by other testimony. But 
I regret that they felt themselves obliged to take a course, 
which compels me, against my feelings, to say, they are 
both under a mistake; for I have documents in my posession 
to prove the fact, that Captain Rodgers did receive his 
letter of dismissal. This will support the record, in 
regard to Captain Rodgers case; but what becomes of it 
in relation to Captain Campbell? The record shows that 
he too, was dismissed; and it also proves the contrary, by 
shewing, that he remained in the service till his death. 
Which is true? 

The letter of Mr. Smith of the I3th of August 1825, is 
a commentary upon the Government and himself, of rath- 
er an equivocal character. He regrets extremely that I 
should have obtained an intimation of the letter of dismis- 
sion of Captain Rodgers, of the 22nd of October, 1801. 
That letter, he says, was an incident of the course of policy 
then pursued. But it puts a period to Mr. Southard's con^ 
elusion, that the law of 1801, necessarily deprived me of 
all redress, even if every other point was in my favour. 
For Mr. Smith says, that the law of 1801, was not consid- 
ered by the President as imperative^ but left him to the 
exercise of his judgment, to dismiss an officer, from time 
to time, as he might think it expedient. Here again he 
contradicts the record, and says, the letter was not to have 
been sent to Rodgers, and calls it a Government Secret. I 
hope for the credit of the Nation, the records of the Navy 
Department do not contain many such secrets. That 
there are Government secrets, necessary to be concealed, 
no one feels disposed to doubt. But it has never before been 
considered, I believe, that what merely concerns the life, lib- 



110 

• 

erty, honour or fortune, of an officer of Government was 
such; that the mere ajjpointment or removal of an offi- 
cer, was of that chararcter. The record upon all such 
matters, it is thought, should be as public as tlie sun 
at noon day. There is no necessity for secrecy upon such 
transactions, and the public have a right to expect, that the 
acts of the Government, and the records of their proceed- 
ings, will bear the strictest scrutiny. I did not expect, 
therefore, to meet with such an objection, and have it con- 
sidered a subject of regret, that I should have known a 
circumstance, that never ought to have been concealed 
from the public. My sole object has been to justify myself. 
To siiew that I have been illegally and, most unjustly injur- 
edf and to obtain such fair and honourable redress, as t!ie 
laws of my country can allow me. I have felt desirous of 
presenting my case to the world as it is; to stand or fall 
by its merits, and to expose all the fraud, management, in- 
trigue and sophistry, that has been resorted to in the whole 
case, in opposition to me. 

Mr. Southard, as a last resort, attempts to rouse the 
feelings of the officers of the Navy against my application, 
by pronouncing it a piece of injustice to place me at their 
head, after being twenty five years absent from their corps. 
Is it my fault that I have been thus absent? If it is not, it 
is no reason against my return. The officers of the Navy 
should certainly thank him for his kind care of their feel- 
ings. Some of them at least, will not have reason to thank 
him very sincerely, for his zeal in their behalf, if it only 
serves to expose the tender thread, by which^ they hold 
their stations. It is easy to see the motive, wliich has in- 
duced him to heyv Ids way through all obstructions; 
through good report and evil report, to the conclusions he 
has arrived at. lie will however, scarcely aid his friends 
by it. The officers of the Navy are more deeply interested, 
that no injustice should be done to one of their corps; that 
no arbitrary assumptions of power; no art or intrigue should 
be countenanced, and relied upon as precedents, to hurl 



Ill 

them from their stations, without a cause of complaint, or 
a hearin.!*, than that an injured officer should receive jus- 
tice for his unmerited wronejs, though it might jdace him 
at their liead. I have never asked a higher favour than 
that niv case should be judged by honourable men: men 
who have seii<ie to discern what is just and right, and hon- 
our to p;^rform it. 

1 would ask no greater favor now, than to submit the 
decision of my case, to the officers of the Navy; whom, 
Mr. Southard thinks, would be so much injured if my pe- 
tition shoul'l be granted; for I should fee! assured of that 
impartial justice from their sentence, which he has not done 
my case in his report. 

I have thus followed Mr. Southard through this la- 
barynth of inferences, arguments and opinions. His re- 
port is before the public, who will judge of its justice, its 
wisdom, and its candor. My evidence, my statements, and 
my remarks, are also before them. I ask but a full exam- 
ination of the whole case, and an impartial decision. This 
I am confident I shall obtain from my fellow citizens, to 
whom this appeal is made. 

Before I close this subject, however, I beg leave to call 
the attention of my readers, to the charge brought against 
m^", by Mr. Southard; that I deserved punishment for go- 
ing to sea without my Commissi(m. It will be recollected, 
that my instructions directed me to repair to Hampton 
Roads, and put my sliip under the command of Captain 
Truxtun; under whose orders I was to sail on the voyage 
contemplated. When I joined Captain Truxtun, I was 
bound to obey his orders, whether [ had my Commission 
or not. My appointment was sufficient to subject me to 
the command of my superior — and it will be remembered, 
that while under the command of Captain Truxtun, his 
Commission w»)uld have protected my ship. 

The following order from Captain Truxtun will prove 
these facts. 

CAPTAIN TRUXTUN'S ORDERS. 
SiE — I shall immediately make the signal for the fleet to make the best 
of their way, beUevin|^ them out of all danger from French cruisers, and 



112 

havinfj convoyed them agreeably to my instructions to this station. As 
our Navy is in its infancy, and as very many Captains I suppose are made 
who may interfere with your rank — 1 have in justice to you, inserted the 
following paragraph, in my dispatch to the Secretary of the Navy. "I am 
perfectly well satisfied with the conduct and attention of Captain Phillips 
of the Baltimore, to every part of his duty, and I beg leave to recommend 
him to your particular notice, and shall be obliged by your mentioning 
him to the President in my name." 

I am, with great respect, 

Your most obedient h<imble servant, 
THOMAS TRUXTUN. 

United States Ship Constellation, October 9th, 1798. 

P S. After the receipt of this, you will proceed to the westward until 
you are out of sight of the Constellation (so that it may not be known where 
you are going) and then make the best of your way ofl" Charleston bar, 
examining all strange vessels; on your arrival off the bar,cruise three or four 
days, and then return to Hampton Roads, continuing from the time you 
leave the fleet, to examine as aforesaid all vessels you meet. On your arri- 
val in the Roads, you will make report to me what you have met, &c. 

I wish you success, 
Captain Phillips. T. T. 

To repel the other charges, brought against me by Mr. 
Stoddert, the following letters and depositions from the 
Hon. Solomon Dickinson, one of the members of the 
Senate of Maryland, a gentleman of integrity and worth, 
who was with me when the outrage upon the Baltimore 
was committed, is testimony of too high an order to be 
disregarded. Mr. Dickinson is one of the few servivors 
among the officers who were attached to my ship, but not 
having received his statements, in time to insert them in the 
order intended, I have considered it proper to notice them 
here. 

Trappe, Talbot County, August 10th, 1825. 
Isaac Pkillips, Esq. 

Dear Sir — I have received yours, together with the enclosures. I have 
endeavoured to call to mind the circumstances that took place when the 
U. S. ship Baltimore fell in with the British squadron, commanded by 
Com. Lnring, off the Havana : — You will please examine the enclosed. 
And I assure you, Sir, I felt equal indignation, wi^h any of your friends, 
at the abrupt and uncourieous manner of your dismissal. 

Be pleased to accept my good wishes for your health and prosperity. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
SOLO. DICKINSON;. 



STATE OF MARYLAND— Talbot CocHTr, to wti . 

On this mil Jay of August, 16<J5, personally appeared Solomon Dickia- 
son, before the subscriber, a Justice of the Peace, for said State and Coun- 
ty, who, being by nie duly sworn, upon the Holy Evangelists of Almighty 
God, deposeth and sayeth — That he was a Purser on board of the United 
States' ship Ualtimore, commanded by Captain Isaac Phillips, in the year 
1798, when she was convoying a fleet of merchantmen from Charleston 
to the Havana; that when ofi" the Havana, we fell in with a Uritish squad- 
ron, under the command of Commodore Loring, of the Carnatic, by which 
some of the fleet was cut off; that Captain Phillips was invited, as this de- 
ponent believes, by Commodore Loring, to visit his ship, which he did, 
and that during his absence, our ship's crew was mustered and overhauled 
by a British officer, in search of British seamen — and deponent thinks 
about fifty of our crew taken off'; all of whom were afterwards returned^ 
except five, who were detained. This deponent also certifies, that he 
Understood and believes, that Captain Phillips resented with considerable 
warmth their impressment. He thinks there passed between Captain ^ 
Phillips and Com. Loring some communication, when the latter made 
sail and left us. S. DICKINSON, 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal. 

JNO. STEVENS, Jh. (Seal.) 
Tkappe, 1 1th September, 1 825. 

Deau Sib — I received yours stating to me the charge exhibited against 
you by Mr. Stoddert. late Secretary of the navy, «'of having written letters 
calculated to excite mutiny among the officers and ctew of the Baltimofe,** 
and enclose you my deposition. 

I hope you may be able to remove the charge, but sir, a lapse of tweft- 
ty-six years, I fear has left but few officers alive. Mr. Clopper, the sail 
maker, must be an old man. I hear of so few of them that I really feel 
pleased when the existence of any is reported to me. You mention some- 
thing about the expense and trouble you occasion me, please give yourself 
ho uneasiness on that head. 1 should be degraded in my own opinion, did 
I mind such when attempting to render justice to my old Commander. My 
best wishes attend you in your endeavours to rescue yourself from the 
opprobrium cast on your reputation by the Secretary. 

With great respeCti 

Your obedient servant, 
S. DICKINSON. 
State of Maryland — Talbot County, to wit. 

On this 12th day of September, 1825, personally appeared Solomon 
Dickinson before the subscriber a justice of the peace for said State and 
County, who being by me duly sworn on the Holy Evangely of Almighty 
God, deposeth and sayeth— that he was attached to the United States 
Ship Baltimore, at the time Captain Isaac Phillips, her commanler, Was 
dismissed in the year 179'J. And, understanding from Captain f'hillips 
that Mr. Stoddert, the then Secretary of the Navy, has accused him with 
P 



114 

"having written letters calculated lo excite mutiny among the officers, 
and crew,'' this deponent certilies that he received several letters himself 
from Captain Phillips after that event, when on board said ship, in 
none of which, was there any thing like a disposition to disturb the peace 
and quiet of the Ship's company nor does he recollect having heard of 
any received by any officer calculated to have that effect. 

S. niCKINSON. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal. 

WILLIAM GIST, Justice Peace, (skal.) 

In the fearful, but glorious struggle for our indepen- 
dence, my career in life commenced, in the service of my 
country. My father, who was one of the Massachusetts 
BoAKD OF WAR, during the revolution, was devoted to the 
cause of freedom. His conduct and opinions made a deep 
• and lasting impression upon my feelings. Imbibing a share 
of his patriotic enthusiasm, while a boy at school, 1 aban- 
doned the security and comforts of home, and the society 
of friends and connexions, to encounter the hardships, and 
brave the dangers of war. I entered as a Midshipman on 
board the armed ship Cumberland of twenty guns, com- 
manded by Captain Collins of Portland. In this vessel 
I made a long and successful cruise. On my return to 
Boston at its termination, 1 entered in the same capacity, 
on board the state ship Mars of twenty guns, one of the 
vessels fitted out by the Board of War at Boston, and com- 
manded by the intreped Captain Sampson. In this ser- 
vice I continued about three years; with what success 
to the American cause, the history of the events of that 
period will tell. In this vessel, I sailed to France, and 
returned to Boston, witii a cargo of arms and munitions 
of war, that had been purchased there, for the use of the 
American army. 

During the whole of our revolutionary war, I was devo- 
ted to the service of my country. I do not mention these 
circumstances, by way of boasting of my public services; 
or to claim any peculiar merit for them: for it was at a 
time, when every man was required to perform his full share 
of duty. But I mention them to shew, that I have always 
been ready, at my country's call, to obey her voice. In all 



115 

the political changes that have taken place, when party 
politics were the most ardent; I appeal to all who have 
ever known me to hear testimony, that whatever may have 
been my j)rivate opinion, it lias never influenced my pub- 
lic conduct. To yield obedience to the constituted author- 
ities of my government, I have held to be the duty of every 
citizen, whether the administration is in the hands of those 
I might have preferred or not. And in time of war, it is 
even more necessary, that this maxim should be felt and 
cherished. At all times, and upon all occasions, from my 
early youth, whenever my services have been required, 
and could be useful to my country, 1 have ever been found 
ready to render them.- 

I have thus fellow-citizens, laid the whole of my case 
before you. I have nothing extenuated, <'nor set down 
aught in malice.'* I have endeavoured to give you a plain 
unexaggerated statement of facts, with such reasons and 
explanations, as appeared to me to be just and necessary. 
My object has been, to make this transaction, with all its 
consequences, known and understood by the American peo- 
ple. They can now see and judge for themselves, of the 
flagrant injustice that has been done me. The report of 
the Secretary of the Navy, with all its inconsistencies, yet 
has formed the basis of the President's decision, against my 
application to be restored to my rank. The documents are 
before them, and speak for themselves. 

1 again entered the service of my country, not to pro- 
mote my own interest, or to gratify a restless ambition. 
I entered it with some confidence, it is true, that I was 
able to perform my duty, with honor to myself, and benefit 
to my country. I relied upon a zealous and faithful dis- 
charge of the trust reposed in me, for the approbation of 
my Government. With exalted opinions of its purity, 
and the strict integrity of its administration, I never imag- 
ined, that injustice would reach me, from that quarter. 
Against it, in any shape, I was unguarded; for I apprehen- 
ded none. Unused to intrigue myself, I was unsuspicious 



116 

of it in others. Incapable of persecuting others, I did not 
expect to be marked out for its victim. Intent alone, 
upon performing my own duty, I did not suspect others of, 
intentionally, neglecting theirsj and least of all, did I an- 
ticipate that the blame would be charged upon mc. Frank, 
unreserved, and open in my conduct towards every one; I 
did not dream of seeking for enemies, where only, 1 expect- 
ed to meet with 'riends. 

A short tour of public duty, however, soon taught me 
the falacy of my opinions, and the weak foundation of my 
faith. Lntil branded svith disgrace, I was unconscious of 
error. Until overwhelmed with injustice, I was bold in 
confidence; and I would have pledged a thousand lives, 
had I possessed so many, for the justice of that Government, 
I had served with zeal and fidelity. How I have been re- 
quited, this history will shew. 

In a country boasting of its Republicanism, of its lib- 
erty, its justice; in its Government of laws, and the purity 
of its administration, injuries cannot pass unredressed. 

If I have suffered unjustly, it would be a libel upon our 
Government, its administration, upon our laws and civil 
institutions; upon the justice and good feelings of the 
American people, to suppose, there were no means of re- 
dress; no redeeming power to mitigate oppression, or satis- 
fy tlie demands of justice. That I have suffered unjustly, 
I appeal to the candor of my countrymen. I ask not their 
sympathy, to paliatemy errors, but an impartial judgment, 
to redress my wrongs. I seek not pity, but justice, stern 
inflexible justice. If there was any thing in this whole 
transaction, for which I was in the least responsible, that 
could reflect disiionor upon the American flag, let me bear 
if; biit let it be painted in colours that shall bear exami- 
nation, that will not fade with time, or depend upon con- 
tingcnces, that tniv future history may contain the truth, 
I ask no concealment, for I fear no scrutiny. I appeal to 
ivrry man, whose mind is nol so wrapped up in prejudice, 
as to be incapable of sustaining an honest sentiment, or 



117 

not open to conviction, if there was any improper condnct ot 
mine, that merited censure. I appeal to the testimony of 
every one, who now survives to tell the story; to those who 
were under my command, and saw what passed, or learned 
it at the time, as well as those, who were interested in the 
cruise, and dependant upon my conduct. Is there any 
thing, in all this testimony, but one universal opinion, that 
my conduct was correct; of one general burst of indignant 
feeling, at the base injustice that has been done me? What 
is all the testimony against me, but a tissue of falsehood, 
of contradictions, of fraud, and deception. 

Am I to blame for my forbearance? B'or remaining, so 
long, blinded to the true character of the proceedings 
against me? Let those censure me, who have reviled the 
administration of the government withotit cause, and have 
doubted the purity of its conduct without eyidence. Let 
those condemn me for this delay, whose suspicions were 
awake, and who might have said to me — 

"Tliere are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, 
''Than are dreamt of in your philosophy," 

for I suspected it not. But it is not too late to justify myself 
to the world, even if I obtain no redress. It is not too late 
to show to the American people, the miserable attempts that 
have been made, to brand me with dishonour. It is not too 
late to expose some of the subterfuges, and pranks of of- 
fice, that are ''played before high heaven," even in this good 
land of ours, and put the people upon their guard. We 
have little to fear from an arbitrary exercise of power, 
unless it creeps upon us, through excess of confidence. 
One act of despotism, is usually followed by another, and 
if submitted to, soon ceases to excite wonder or surprise. 
The first, is quoted as a precedent, to justify a second; a 
second to justify a third; till the point, at length, is conced- 
ed as lawful. Pursue this course, and your government 
will soon cease to be a government of laws. For this 
boasted privilege, you may have a government of discretion, 
or more likely, of caprice. Instead of statutes, you may be 
blessed with a code of arbitrary edicts; and your constitution 



7^ 






• ■• 



i^'\r * 



'^' %. 













:/• ' •?!). 



"-^0^ 
4*^^^ 






<^. 




>• 



^> "^ .V^ 1 



%.^^ 



^%, ^ 









.0^ t- 



t. 



/■ 



4> t • • * r\ 












^5! -f i 











^^ 







* ^ 

^/ ^ %> • 





• o.^ O^ * • - « 



. T • A 






^" 









"* . -.^s^l^.' .^«*" V °-?^^^'^'*^*' -** *- -.ai^.- -^--c^ 



■p* .•'^•. *' 



• ,*•• 






















^•/ ^'^--y ^'-^-.o' v---.,.--, 

/ .-I^/^. %,.^ •^\ \/ ,^>. -.^^.^ 






^32084 






